[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 126 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                    ``WHY PUNISH THE CUBAN PEOPLE?''

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, our irrational policy toward Cuba 
was discussed in a New York Times editorial that makes good sense.
  I ask to insert that editorial into the Record at this point.
  The editorial follows:

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 24, 1994]

                      Why Punish the Cuban People?

       President Clinton's abrupt reversal of 28 years of Cuban 
     refugee policy last Friday looked clumsy enough, but over the 
     weekend he made it worse. Seeking to punish Fidel Castro for 
     unleashing the latest refugee tide, Mr. Clinton ended up also 
     punishing ordinary Cubans. He cut off all cash support from 
     their relatives in the U.S., rather than the 50 percent cut 
     originally announced. By raising the temperature on Cuba when 
     it should be trying to cool it, the Administration could yet 
     convert a rhetorical emergency into a real one.
       The package of pressures the President unveiled on Saturday 
     did include two legitimate spurs to greater freedom in Cuba--
     increased radio broadcasts and a new U.N. initiative on human 
     rights. It also included a cutoff of charter flights from the 
     U.S.--unwise, since Cuban freedom is served by more contacts 
     with Americans, not less.
       The Administration suspended the payments because they not 
     only help stretch family budgets but also provide hard 
     currency to Havana as recipients exchange their dollars for 
     goods in special Government-run stores. The policy seems 
     designed to bring Cuba to a political boil by closing off the 
     refugee safety valve and driving down living standards. 
     Presumably that will hasten a popular revolt, but this course 
     entails a pointless risk to the Cuban people since the Castro 
     regime is already withering.
       Even in decline, Mr. Castro has again shown his uncanny 
     power to get Washington to tie itself in knots. Following a 
     familiar pattern, the U.S. is overreacting to his 
     provocations and letting domestic politics distort foreign 
     policy priorities.
       In any rational calculus, Mexico, with its 92 million 
     people and a North American Free Trade Agreement, should be 
     the Administration's main Latin concern following a critical 
     and tense election. Instead all eyes are fixed on Cuba and 
     continuing efforts to contain the refugee flow, promoted in 
     one frantic day by Attorney General Janet Reno from non-
     problem to national emergency.
       The Administration's new offensive against Havana is 
     supported by Cuban-Americans, who were upset when Washington 
     reclassified those who risk their lives to flee Mr. Castro's 
     economically battered police state as ``illegal immigrants'' 
     rather than refugees from tyranny. They believe the time has 
     finally come to get rid of the Castro regime, and inflicting 
     increased short-term pain on Cuba's people seems worth the 
     long-term gain.
       The voice of a million Cuban-Americans should be heard, but 
     it should not be allowed to drive U.S. policy against humane 
     values and larger national interests. Those values weigh 
     against punishing innocent victims, and those interests do 
     not include detonating a large explosion in the Caribbean. 
     Discontented Cubans do not relish rising up only to be mowed 
     down by a totalitarian regime. They would rather get out and 
     start anew somewhere else. It is unconscionable for 
     Washington to tell them, in effect, no, we will lock you in 
     until you revolt.
       Getting rid of Fidel Castro is a job for the Cuban people 
     themselves, not for the U.S. Government or Miami exiles. This 
     cold-war orphan can still annoy the U.S. but poses no serious 
     threat. Instead of gearing up for another round of sterile 
     confrontation, Washington should be spelling out what Cuba 
     could gain, under this regime or a successor, by embracing 
     democracy and respecting human rights. That, rather than 
     increased hunger and misery, might actually encourage those 
     Cubans who remain in Cuba to work for political 
     change.

                          ____________________