[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: November 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          NO-WIN ROAD TO CUBA

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Cynthia McClintock, president of the 
Latin American Studies Association [LASA], and Philip Brenner and Wayne 
Smith, who are with the Cuba Task Force of LASA, recently had an op-ed 
piece in the Washington Post about the strange policy of the 
administration of restricting travel to Cuba.
  As a matter of fact, that policy doesn't make sense whether it's 
Cuba, Iran, Iraq, or any other country.
  My strong belief is that we play into the hands of dictators when we 
restrict travel to their country.
  Only if there is danger to Americans, should we restrict travel.
  It was not very many years ago when we rightfully criticized the 
Soviet Union because they would not let their citizens travel to the 
West.
  And here we are doing the same thing.
  I ask that the McClinton, Brenner, and Smith item be printed in the 
Congressional Record at this point.
  The op-ed piece follows:

                          No-Win Road to Cuba

        (By Cynthia McClintock, Philip Brenner, and Wayne Smith)

       Among other measures it took this past summer to ``tighten 
     the noose'' on Fidel Castro, the Clinton administration 
     rescinded the general license under which professional 
     researchers could travel freely to the island. This means 
     that professors and graduate students working on issues 
     related to Cuba must now apply for a specific license if they 
     wish to travel. They must do so at least six weeks in advance 
     and have no assurance that the license will be granted; 
     rather, they will be at the mercy of government bureaucrats 
     who can scrub research projects without explanation at the 
     stroke of a pen.
       This is an egregious infringement of academic freedoms only 
     one step up from book burning. Many academics, including 
     members of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA), 
     have already indicated their intention to travel to Cuba in 
     defiance of the unjust law.
       Controls on travel to Cuba have for years now clearly been 
     unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld them in 1984 only 
     because of the Cold War. National security needs, the court 
     ruled by a narrow margin, overrode the rights of citizens to 
     travel. We thought that decision wrong in 1984, but at that 
     point its rationale was at least consistent with other Cold 
     War national security-based opinions. Today, with the Soviet 
     Union having collapsed, the Cold War having ended and Cuba no 
     longer representing even a potential threat to the United 
     States or any other country, the national security argument 
     has evaporated. Yet despite all this, the Clinton 
     administration, shamefully, has continued to violate the 
     constitutional right of American citizens to travel.
       Now it goes even further by curtailing academic freedoms. 
     this is not an ``ivory tower'' issue that affects only 
     college professors. On the contrary, it concerns all 
     Americans, for it goes to the heart of our ability to learn 
     the truth, unvarnished by would-be government censors and 
     manipulators.
       And why did the Clinton administration take these new 
     measures? To deny the Castro regime the dollars academics 
     spend during their travels to the island. This, it was said, 
     would help force Castro to prevent Cuban citizens from 
     departing the island by raft or small boat.
       First, the dollar amounts are almost laughably small 
     (academics being notoriously poor). And--more puzzling 
     still--didn't the Clinton administration until recently 
     criticize the Castro government precisely on grounds that it 
     was preventing such departures? The Clinton administration 
     said that was a violation of human rights. So did many human 
     rights organizations. And indeed, international conventions 
     state that citizens of any country should be free to depart 
     and return at will. Thus, in demanding that Castro stanch the 
     flow of refugees, were we not directing him to resume the 
     practices we once criticized and, in fact, to violate human 
     rights?
       Whatever the moral dilemmas embedded in our demands, Castro 
     has complied. He has agreed to again prevent Cubans from 
     setting out for the United States in small boats. The Clinton 
     administration, however, has given no indication that it 
     intends to rescind the measures it took supposedly to force 
     him to do just that. First for an unjust cause, and now 
     without any cause at all, the administration tramples the 
     civil rights and academic freedoms of American citizens. Why? 
     To placate a right-wing fringe within the Cuban-American 
     community in Florida. Indeed, these elements, led by the 
     Cuban-American National Foundation, seem to have played the 
     leading role in shaping our Cuba policy over the past few 
     months. They wanted these measures imposed, and they want 
     them left in place.
       But if they are left in place, one result could be American 
     jails (or at least courts) filled with university presidents 
     and academics. Before it goes any further down this no-win 
     road, the Clinton administration should begin to rethink its 
     whole Cuba policy--and to seek advice elsewhere.

                          ____________________