President Clinton's decision to ease some U.S. restrictions on Cuba was the result of a monthlong battle between two powerful groups over a proposal that all knew could trigger momentous changes in U.S.-Cuba relations, according to several of the players involved.

On one side, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., then just back from a six-hour chat with President Fidel Castro, was pushing Clinton to name a bipartisan commission that would execute a top-to-bottom review of U.S. policies on Cuba.

Backing the idea were National Security Council chief Sandy Berger, 23 other U.S. senators, Henry Kissinger and two other former secretaries of state, and the U.S. agricultural lobby, bent on opening the Cuba market.

On the other side: Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Democrats who branded the proposal as unnecessary and a Trojan horse for advocates of lifting the 37-year-old trade embargo on Cuba.

Still undecided at the time were two strong voices, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Vice President Al Gore.

In the end, it was a mix of players that pushed Clinton to reject the commission in a decision announced Tuesday, said a dozen congressional, State Department and White House officials involved in the talks.

``In Washington, you never know what straw really broke the camel's back. But Graham played a strong role, Albright had her concerns, and Gore wasn't going to [anger] Cuban-American voters in key states like Florida and New Jersey, said one lobbyist who participated in some of the discussions.

As Christmas approached and Clinton had not yet made a decision, everyone met with everyone. Letters and memos pleading and warning were rushed by courier. Last-minute arguments were phoned or e-mailed in, then expanded in more calls and more computer messages.

Gore, who initially favored the commission if it could finish its work by April, long before the presidential elections next year, rejected it after hearing that security checks alone on members might take months.

Albright also decided against it, figuring that any major changes recommended by the panel would never get past a Republican-run Congress, and not thrilled by the proposal's implied challenge to her policy turf.

Clinton heard from Gore and Albright about three days before Christmas. And Graham, in exchange for Clinton's rejection of the commission, about the same time agreed to support several measures drafted months before by the State Department to kindle democracy in Cuba by easing some U.S. sanctions.

Clinton resolves conflict

Clinton signed off on the measures about Dec. 29 and announced them Tuesday, a package not yet fully detailed but nevertheless controversial: no commission, but food, fertilizer and pesticide sales to some Cubans, more U.S. travel to the island and more remittances to its people.

State Department officials said the commission rejection and the new measures were announced together as a consolation prize to those who favored the bipartisan commission as a first step toward lifting the U.S. embargo.

``It's not true that these steps were taken only to cover up the rejection of the commission, but yes, the . . . announcements were timed together to even out things, one State Department official said.

Interestingly, none of the officials interviewed mentioned the lobbying against the commission carried out by the Cuban American National Foundation, long a powerful voice in most of Washington's Cuba decisions.

Today, the measures announced by Clinton have become a kind of Rorschach ink blot test for Cuba-watchers, reflecting less what is really there than what the persons looking at them want to see.

Administration officials insist they are designed to help the Cuban people, not Castro's government, by fueling the development of independent institutions and pro-democracy movements on the island.

``The assumption is that when Fidel Castro passes from the scene, Cuba is going to enter a transition . . . and we're going to do everything to ensure that transition is peaceful and democratic, said James Dobbins, the top Latin American official at the National Security Council.

Translation: Washington expects the 72-year-old Castro to die in the not very distant future, and wants to help create a democratic cushion in Cuba that might keep the island from slipping into chaos once he does.

Graham said he supports the initiatives as a way of improving contacts with the Cuban people while still trying to isolate the Castro government. ``It's a two-track policy, trying to do both, he told The Herald.
Weak or far-reaching?

Some critics of the new measures say they are too weak. ``These steps are extremely limited in scope and don't change anything, said Wayne Smith, the top U.S. diplomat in Havana during the Carter administration.

But others see the steps as far-reaching -- a scandal to conservatives who favor tighter sanctions on Castro, a breakthrough to those who for different reasons want to cut the Gordian knot of U.S-Cuba relations.

``Castro is the real issue, not U.S. policy. But every time we change something, we give the impression that we're the ones to blame, not him, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami said.

``These are significant developments that will open many areas of contacts between U.S. and Cuban interests, said John Kavulich, head of the New York-based U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council.

Just how significant the new measures will be will depend largely on three factors: the detailed regulations that must now be drafted, the public reaction to those regulations, and Castro's reply.

Some of the measures are considered relatively trouble-free: direct mail to and from Cuba, flights to and from cities other than Miami and Havana, more money for Radio and TV Marti.

But others are complex and technical experts from the State, Treasury and Commerce departments will need at least three to six months to draft regulations for them, knowledgeable officials said. One measure on remittances to Cuba announced by the State Department last March still has no regulations.

``You write them and then stand back and consider possible loopholes and ramifications, one official said. ``Does it do what the President wants done? Are there unanticipated consequences, and are they good or bad?''

Examples: Can the expanded remittances be used to finance private enterprises in Cuba, or send cash to dissidents? Could U.S. firms sell food to foreign-owned hotels in Cuba, or fertilizers to ``independent farm cooperatives in fact controlled by the Castro government?

Rule-making is key

Depending on just how broadly the regulations are written, all of those examples might be allowed under the new measures.

``This is a landmark decision, a wide door . . . that gives the White House the flexibility to incrementally expand activities, said Pam Falk, who teaches international trade and business law at the City University of New York and is writing a book on Cuba.

Falk expects that the regulations could easily allow U.S. sales to groups such as the Cuban Association of Animal Production, an independent group of animal husbandry experts, created with European Community development aid, that has been advising private rabbit farmers on the island.

But any bolder regulations will have to pass muster with Washington conservatives such as Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and Cuban Americans opposed to easing sanctions on the Castro government.

``The hand on the [regulations] throttle belongs to public opinion, said one Washington official long involved in Cuba issues. ``We'll float something, and if people agree, we move ahead. If people scream, we back off.

Cuba, too, has a say

And the last word belongs to Cuba, where early reaction was negative. National Assembly chief Ricardo Alarcon said Friday that Cuba had ``rejected'' all the U.S. measures but one -- allowing the Baltimore Orioles to play two games for charity against a Cuban baseball team.

The Cuban government now has a monopoly on many of the activities that might be allowed for ``independent Cubans under the new measures, and laws banning others outright.

The government's ALIMPORT agency is alone authorized to import commercial quantities of food, and the government-run fertilizer combine alone can import and distribute agricultural inputs. Direct foreign investments have not been allowed without government participation.

``Cuban officials could set up some agencies at a distance to take advantage of these openings, Falk said. ``They just don't want to lose control of things, but they could let them happen.

But even when given the opportunity to do business with U.S. firms, Cuban officials have proven reluctant to do so in the past.

Deals didn't happen

After the Treasury Department eased regulations last year on the sale of medicines and medical equipment to Cuba, several U.S. salespeople rushed to Havana but were politely put off by officials, one businessman said.

The Cubans at the end always said they didn't need the goods, or that they had found other products or other suppliers. More likely, the businessman added, there was a political decision not to buy from U.S. suppliers.

And then there is Castro, who has always demanded a full lifting of the U.S. embargo and often seemed to go out of his way to create a crisis that torpedoed U.S. attempts at halfway measures.

Members of Congress who oppose the embargo urged Havana to ``behave during a meeting Tuesday with Cuban diplomats, one Washington official said. The diplomats noted that Havana had hoped for the appointment of the bipartisan commission, believing it would have led to a full lifting of the embargo.

Sen. Dodd, described as incensed by Clinton's rejection of the commission proposal, and other U.S. opponents of the embargo are not giving up on the idea.

``I will be working . . . to continue to discuss this initiative with the President and the secretary of state because I strongly believe that as we approach a new millennium, the time has come to set aside an outdated U.S.-Cuba policy, Dodd said after Clinton's announcement Tuesday.

Said Pam Falk: ``This is not over. All they've done is move the goal posts.

Frank Davies of The Herald's Washington Bureau contributed to this report.