By Wayne S. Smith
October 11, 2001
Why, one wonders, is Cuba still on the list of terrorist states? We don't like its system of government and have many other disagreements with it, but a terrorist state it isn't. Perhaps one could argue that it was in the past. Perhaps. But not now.
On the basis of what evidence does the State Department include it on the list? Well, first of all, the State Department says Cuba harbors Basque terrorists. But if that were so, surely the Spanish government would be concerned as well. In fact, however, these few aging Basques are living peacefully in Cuba as the result of an agreement between the Spanish and Cuban governments, one requested under former Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez and for which the Spanish government has expressed appreciation to the Cuban. Madrid had rather have these particular Basques living in Cuba. And they are not involved in activities against Spain. Clearly, then, no grounds for the terrorist label here.
Second, the State Department complains that Cuba has contacts with the various guerrilla groups in Colombia. But many governments, including the Venezuelan - and the Colombian itself, have contacts with those groups. Nothing necessarily sinister in that. What is of importance is that there is no evidence that Cuba is inciting the guerrillas in Colombia to violence or supplying them with arms.
On the contrary, the State Department complains that Cuba has facilitated meetings, i.e., peace talks, between the guerrillas and the government. But shouldn't that merit applause rather than a place on the list of terrorist states? In fact, isn't the U.S. itself interested in fostering such contacts?
And finally, the Department complains that Cuba is harboring a number of fugitives from U.S. justice. True, there are a handful of such fugitives on the island. But as Cuban officials point out, there is no extradition treaty between the two nations. If the U.S. wants these fugitives back, the best way to proceed would be to negotiate such a treaty, something the U.S. has not done. And meanwhile, there is no evidence that the fugitives are involved in activities against the U.S., or, for that matter, activities against anyone. They are simply living in Cuba. That hardly seems sufficient grounds to label Cuba "a terrorist state."
In fact, none of the evidence is in the least convincing. If this is all the State Department can come up with, Cuba should be removed from the list of rogue states immediately. That of course would cause howls of rage among the right-wing exiles in Miami, and no one in the State Department or the Administration itself has shown any willingness to stand up to that tiny but strident special interest group. It should be noted, however, that there are possible unwanted consequences to keeping Cuba on the list. In June, for example, there were reports of Chinese shipments of arms and explosives to Cuba.
At first the Administration seemed to regard the reports as a low-key bargaining chip that might be used against China at no cost to the U.S. Thus, in hearings on June 11 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Assistant Secretary of State for Asia seemed to confirm the reports and said Washington "was very concerned with this PLA [Peoples Liberation Army] cooperation and movement of military equipment to Cuba."
Almost too late, someone in the Administration recalled that under a 1996 amendment to the 1962 Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. is required to impose a trade embargo against any country which provides military equipment, however ordinary and conventional, to any state on the list of terrorist nations.
Obviously, the Bush Administration has no wish to sever our trade relations with China - and certainly not over so petty an issue. It quickly backtracked and announced that it had no evidence "that China had transferred lethal military equipment to Cuba."
It was helped by a Chinese statement categorically denying that any military shipments at all had been made to Cuba. But China reserves the right to provide small arms to Cuba. So does Russia, which at some point might well provide replacements for certain of the aging weapons it gave to Cuba years ago. Should there be transfers of weapons which would in any way threaten the U.S., Washington would and should take issue. But if, as is likely, we were dealing with shipments of small arms, it would most decidedly not be in the interest of the U.S. to break trade relations with the shipper. Which simply points up the fact that foolish practices such as keeping Cuba on the list of terrorist states do have a cost.
Wayne S. Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C. and a long-time expert on Cuba