Blame Castro, not the Cubans

Published Wednesday, July 28, 1999, in the Miami Herald

FRANK CALZON

Blame Castro, not the Cubans

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

Although prejudice can be found anywhere, Americans might be shocked that bigotry has raised its ugly head in the upper reaches of the Clinton administration.

The pugnacious debate about Cuba has grown uglier since The New York Times quoted unnamed administration officials asserting that Cuban Americans hold U.S.-Cuba policy hostage. If this were said about the NAACP's interest in South Africa, or the Jewish-American community's concerns about Israel, cries of outrage against such bigotry would resound across America.

While critics might object to the influence of Cuban Americans, interest groups (ethnic, regional, professional, corporate, etc.) are simply a fact of life. When Cuban Americans write to their members of Congress, they are exercising their right to petition the government for redress of grievances. When my sisters attend a political rally, they are enjoying the right of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution. Until now, I believed that when my parents register and vote, they are fulfilling a civic responsibility. But now I know that ``a senior government official'' thinks that what they are really doing is ``holding U.S. policy hostage.''

To note the virulent attacks on the Cuban-American community is not to assert that its members are exempt from responsibility for the shrillness of the debate. We are not. But it might be instructive to remember that whether it was workers attempting to unionize 100 years ago, African Americans demanding an end to discrimination in the 1960s, or women struggling to achieve equality today, the victims of great injustices are sometimes a nuisance to those not interested in their plight.

What could Cuban Americans say that would be so objectionable?

That the administration's accords with
Fidel Castro have been negotiated in such secrecy that sometimes not even the Cuba desk at the Department of State is informed.

That the ``adjustments'' in Cuba policy are often presented as fait accompli, ignoring the Congress and U.S. laws.

That the government's spinning and lawyerly hair-splitting overshadow Cuba policy, promoting a mind-set that believes in giving Castro the benefit of the doubt. The most recent example: the suggestion that a legal opinion is needed to determine whether the embargo statutes prohibit not only American sales to the Cuban government but also sales through the Cuban regime.

The debate provides a sobering commentary on the values held by some American elites on the eve of the 21st Century.

For some, Castro is the one remaining beacon in a pantheon that once included Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh. As long as Castro or North Korea's Kim Jong Il, the son of the deceased Kim Il Sung, remain in power, it can be said that the socialist experiment has not been a complete fiasco.

Yet the American people have an instinctive aversion to tyranny and object to providing assistance that could lengthen Castro's rule. Most Americans agree that the problem is Castro, not the Cuban Americans. Because Castro refuses to base U.S.-Cuban relations on any sort of reciprocity -- and certainly because of his abhorrent human-rights record -- those seeking to soften the sanctions rely on ``spinning'' policy, redefining the meaning of the law and slandering the Cuban-American community.

How did it come to be, that without further congressional action, the Cuban Adjustment Act -- which protected Cuban refugees since the mid-1960s -- now has a different meaning?

Furthermore, what prevents other laws from being subjected to similar whims of the executive branch?

What prevents other communities -- blacks interested in South Africa, Irish-Americans concerned about Ireland and Jewish-Americans following events in Israel, for instance -- from being accused by unnamed government officials of holding American policy hostage because they disagree with the government?

The implications of this issue obviously extend beyond Cuban Americans.