Foundation rattles base of support

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
Herald Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- It is already part of the lore surrounding Jorge Mas Canosa. In his last days, with his last breaths, the inveterate Castro-fighter urged colleagues not to waver in the struggle to free Cuba.

Forward, he is said to have whispered. ``Adelante, adelante, adelante.''

But three months after his death, the Cuban American National Foundation that Mas Canosa built into a lobbying powerhouse is moving down an uncertain path, alienating some of its longtime supporters and antagonizing its Washington allies.

The foundation, which owes its dominance for more than 15 years to its projection of a united exile voice, is now at odds with other pillars of the diaspora.

The turmoil comes as the custodians of the hard-line U.S. policy toward Cuba face mounting criticism in the wake of Pope John Paul II's visit to the island last month, as pressure grows from American religious, humanitarian and business groups to relax U.S. sanctions in hopes of easing the suffering of the Cuban people.

Seeking to blunt that trend, project a more humane image and forestall more radical initiatives, the foundation is proposing what was once unthinkable: sending U.S. food aid to Communist Cuba. Preliminary plans call for feeding up to 50,000 people a year with $5 million to $10 million in surplus U.S. food.

To some, the foundation has swerved down a course that threatens to topple the embargo policy it helped to erect.

Many exiles are reserving judgment -- torn between impulses to help ordinary Cubans and to punish Cuban President Fidel Castro. Most people interviewed for this article declined to speak on the record. Some said they did not want to exacerbate divisions that can only comfort their foes; others worried about crossing the still influential foundation.

But one thing is clear: The foundation's first major project in two years is raising questions about its once uncanny ability to command allegiance and shape U.S. policy.

``It surprised us that the foundation, which has a long upstanding record in the patriotic struggle, now puts itself behind a law to open the door to Cuba and send aid,'' said Roberto Rodriguez Aragon, president of the Cuban Patriotic Front, one of 40 exile groups that signed a declaration last week opposing any easing of the embargo.

``That's very dangerous. It confuses public opinion, Cubans on the island and congressmen'' in Washington, he said.

Responded to Pope's message

Last month, word got out in Congress and among exile leaders that the foundation was preparing legislation that would authorize the United States to send federal food aid to the island for the first time since the 1959 Revolution.

Faced with the pontiff's stern rejection of the U.S. embargo as ``ethically unacceptable,'' and with images of needy Cubans televised around the world, foundation leaders tapped a staffer of Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., to draft a bill that would place blame for Cubans' misery on Castro's shoulders.

The plan was designed to have multiple effects: Castro would either reject the aid as humiliating, or allow it to flow, bolstering the Roman Catholic Church and other independent entities that distributed it. At the same time, the bill would give U.S. lawmakers an alternative to another proposal gaining steam in Congress: the Dodd-Torres bill, which would take a huge bite out of the U.S. embargo by allowing the sale of food and medicine to Cuba.

``The Pope struck a resounding chord, and we feel that it's important to respond -- to show that the recalcitrant one, the unchanging one, is Castro, not the exile community,'' said a foundation official, who asked not to be named.

Word got out too soon

But the general outline of the plan became known when it was still on the drawing board, while Helms' aide was still fact-finding in Cuba and before the foundation had even consulted the Catholic Church or the American Red Cross, the proposed distributors of aid. Within days, Castro rejected it, saying Cuba wanted to trade and would never ``beg.''

As a result, ``our hand was forced before we were ready to move forward,'' said the foundation official. ``Quite frankly, it was downhill from there.''

The key misstep came when foundation President Pepe Hernandez, scrambling to get ahead of the leaks, laid out the plan to the two Cuban-American lawmakers from Miami, then asked them to endorse it at a news conference the next day.

Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart refused.

``You would never do this when Jorge Mas Canosa was alive,'' Hernandez snapped, according to one participant. By the next day, Rep. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., Congress' third Cuban American, had joined the opponents.

Public power struggle

The lawmakers rejected the bill on political grounds, saying the plan would fuel the anti-embargo movement rather than dampen it. But they could barely contain their annoyance with the foundation for trying to force them to accept a major shift in Cuba policy.

A public power struggle had erupted between leaders of the foundation and its Washington proteges.

The dispute has a high-wire quality; each side needs the other. With its reputation for delivering campaign funds and votes, the foundation is courted from Capitol Hill to the White House.

But it probably cannot succeed without the support of its own representatives. Ros-Lehtinen chairs a key international relations subcommittee; Diaz-Balart sits on the Rules Committee. Many members defer to them on Cuba, and the two are in a position to bottle up any bill affecting the island.

`Just seem to be lost'

It was not the first time the lawmakers had confronted the foundation. They had disagreed, for example, with its support for aid to Cuba in the wake of Hurricane Lili in 1995. But it was the most stark standoff.

Hernandez led the initial rounds in Congress. But he proved an unimpressive lobbyist. One U.S. official, who witnessed Hernandez's rambling presentation, later voiced disbelief: ``These are the folks that everybody's afraid of?''

Another Cuba-watcher lobbied by Hernandez and his team said Mas Canosa's absence was painful.

``When they used to walk into a room, you knew these were people who knew how to use power. Maybe it was just Jorge, and everybody looked right in the shadow of Jorge,'' the source said. Hernandez and his colleagues, in contrast, ``just seem to be lost,'' the source said.

Leadership under scrutiny

For his part, Hernandez remains combative. On Miami radio last week, he disparaged critics of the plan as ``little Cubans'' and ``hypocrites.''

But Hernandez's own image is under scrutiny amid concerns that his leadership could jeopardize the foundation's careful blend of political toughness and nonviolence. Federal investigators in Puerto Rico are exploring how a rifle registered to him ended up in the hands of Cuban exiles allegedly plotting to assassinate Castro last year in Venezuela.

Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart, in turn, enjoy ``safe seats,'' the fruit of years of support by the foundation and other exile groups.

The two lawmakers say the foundation plan would ``legitimize erroneous arguments'' put forth by anti-embargo forces. They note that the 1996 Helms-Burton Act allows for federal aid transfers, making new legislation unnecessary.

A base divided

``They want to be pre-eminent'' on Cuba policy, said Alfredo Duran, a Bay of Pigs veteran and attorney who favors easing U.S. sanctions. ``They tolerated Mas Canosa, but I don't think they'll tolerate anyone else.''

The foundation is bracing for ``an unprecedented assault,'' one official said. He cited a formidable coalition building behind Dodd-Torres, with the United Auto Workers the latest to link arms with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in support.

But first, the foundation must make peace with its base. For some, that means finding a way to defuse the food aid controversy. Negotiations with the lawmakers are scheduled to continue this week after both sides agreed to seek a solution.

Which side will lose face? For the first time, there are those who are betting against the foundation.

``In the days of Mas,'' observed one Senate staffer, ``this would have been over by now.''