[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 131 (Monday, September 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          THE EMBARGO MUST GO

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Chairs of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee had an item 
on the Washington Post editorial page suggesting that our policy toward 
Cuba does not really make any sense.
  I could not agree more.
  Claiborne Pell and Lee Hamilton almost always provide commonsense 
direction for our country in the area of foreign relations, and we 
ought to be listening to them on this occasion.
  I ask to insert their statement into the Record at this point.
  The article follows:

                       [From the Washington Post]

                          The Embargo Must Go

                (By Claiborne Pell and Lee H. Hamilton)

       The United States and Cuba have taken the positive step of 
     opening talks to address the refugee exodus. But we need to 
     look beyond this crisis. A comprehensive review of U.S. 
     policy toward Cuba is long overdue. Rather than focusing all 
     of our attention on Fidel Castro, we need to start thinking 
     about what's good for the Cuban people, and how to promote 
     lasting, peaceful change.
       Current U.S. policy dates from when Cuba was a Soviet 
     surrogate, aggressively challenging U.S. interests from 
     Africa to Central America. That time is past. Cuba poses no 
     threat to the security of the United States. Yet Washington's 
     hard-line stance continues--more a product of shortsighted 
     domestic politics than of prudent foreign policy 
     considerations.
       We share the president's goal of fostering democratic 
     change on the island: We want Cuba to join the community of 
     democratic nations by instituting political and economic 
     reform and respecting human rights. Unfortunately, current 
     policy seems based on the longstanding hope that isolating 
     Cuba will bring about change. We believe the critical 
     challenge is to construct a policy that doesn't put the pace 
     of change in Castro's hands but that proactively promotes a 
     peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba.
       For the last 33 years, the cornerstone of U.S. policy has 
     been an embargo that restricts trade, travel and the flow of 
     information. Defenders of the approach argue that by 
     isolating the regime and aggravating Cuba's economic crisis, 
     the United States can force the Cuban government to 
     capitulate, or induce a desperate Cuban people to overthrow 
     the regime. Toward that end, the embargo was tightened two 
     years ago. President Clinton's recent decision to block Cuban 
     Americans from sending cash to relatives in Cuba and to 
     drastically restrict travel to and from the island further 
     tightens the noose.
       Unfortunately, after three decades the embargo has failed 
     to bring about democracy in Cuba. Though Cuba has suffered 
     the loss of Soviet subsidies and its worst sugar harvest and 
     most devastating tropical storm in recent history, Castro 
     remains in power. No matter how hard the United States 
     squeezes the Cuban economy, we doubt it will force the Cuban 
     government to embrace democracy. Castro has made a career of 
     defying U.S. pressure and is unlikely to yield: U.S. policy 
     provides a convenient scapegoat for Cuba's economic woes and 
     a rallying point for Cuban nationalism.
       Moreover, U.S. policy has done little to advance the cause 
     of human rights in Cuba. Instead, it creates an atmosphere of 
     hostility, reinforcing a siege mentality and providing a 
     justification for repressive policies. The U.N. special 
     rapporteur on Cuba stated in his 1994 report to the U.N. 
     commissioner on human rights that the embargo is ``totally 
     counterproductive'' to improving human rights. Reformers 
     see the embargo as an obstacle to change, providing 
     ammunition for Cuban hard-liners to accuse anyone 
     advocating reform of playing into the hands of 
     ``imperialists'' to the north.
       Escalating economic pressure may actually reduce prospects 
     for a peaceful transition. If economic sanctions create 
     sufficient hardship to cause social unrest, the most likely 
     consequence would be widespread political violence. This 
     would be a tragedy for the Cuban people and a disaster for 
     the United States. Civil strife would generate a tidal wave 
     of refugees far beyond current flows from Cuba. And it would 
     provoke intense domestic political pressure for U.S. military 
     intervention--far greater than we have witnessed with Haiti.
       We have learned that the best way to move a communist 
     country toward freedom is to intensify and broaden our 
     engagement with its people. The Cuban people need an invasion 
     of people, ideas and information, not a tightened embargo or 
     a blockade. The United States seeks to change regimes in 
     China and Vietnam through trade and broader engagement. If we 
     use this approach to pry open societies halfway around the 
     world, why should Cuba, 90 miles away, be different?
       The United States should open the door for a positive, 
     rather than punitive, influence on Cuba's future by expanding 
     contact with the Cuban people. As initial steps, the United 
     States should: (1) Lift the travel ban that prevents most 
     U.S. citizens from traveling to Cuba; (2) lift the ban on 
     remittances to family members; (3) remove restrictions 
     limiting telecommunications and the exchange of press between 
     the United States and Cuba; (4) expand exchange programs 
     between United States and Cuban citizens; (5) lift the ban on 
     the commercial sale of food and medicine; and (6) remove the 
     extraterritorial provisions of the embargo that have angered 
     our allies and hindered a multilateral approach to Cuba. 
     Beyond these measures the United States can, over time, take 
     additional step-by-step measures to modify the embargo in 
     response to positive Cuban actions.
       In contrast to Haiti, where the United States is 
     collaborating with other countries to promote democracy, we 
     are alone in our Cuban policy. Many of our closest allies in 
     Europe and Latin America are establishing closer political 
     and economic ties with Cuba, diminishing the economic impact 
     of the U.S. embargo. At the last U.N. General Assembly, only 
     Israel, Albania and Paraguay joined us in opposing an end to 
     the embargo.
       We don't think lifting the embargo immediately is 
     politically possible. We may need to move gradually--but we 
     need to move. Lifting the embargo in stages can give the 
     United States leverage over the Cuban government, which fears 
     openness more than isolation. We will better erode 
     totalitarianism by reaching out to the Cuban people.

                          ____________________