[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1444-E1445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             INTRODUCTION FOR MS. THOMAS' RESEARCH ANALYSIS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 21, 2004

  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw your attention to the 
recently announced approval by the Federal Government for a California 
biotechnology firm to license three experimental drugs from Cuba. This 
decision is especially interesting in the light of the fact that the 
administration also recently unveiled new measures to further tighten 
Cuban embargo restrictions. The contradictory actions of this 
administration, combined with a continued focus on maintaining an 
embargo that has done nothing to change the status of the Castro 
regime, reveal a profound lack of interest in truly improving the lives 
of average Cuban citizens. What is really at stake is President Bush's 
electoral votes in Florida this November, rather than an ethical and 
constructive approach to U.S.-Cuba relations. These new embargo 
restrictions deserve to be reexamined in terms of whether they are 
necessary to United States-Cuban policy and whether they may, in fact, 
worsen already unnecessarily tense relations with Cuba, as well as lead 
to counter productive reactions on the island.
  I urge my colleagues to read the following research analysis on the 
increasingly unproductive United States policy toward Cuba that was 
recently authored by Lindsay Thomas, a

[[Page E1445]]

research associate at the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric 
Affairs:

       The mammoth street demonstration witnessed in Havana on 
     June 21 was a glaring example of yet another counter-
     productive, anti-Castro initiative fathered by Washington 
     policymakers. The latter may be long on raw ideology, but 
     demonstrably, are short on reality. On that day, tens of 
     thousands of Cubans gathered in front of the U.S. Interests 
     Section (the official U.S. presence in Havana) to warn 
     Washington against resorting to any preemptive military 
     action against the island.
       The Bush administration, following the practice of all of 
     its predecessors, has maintained a cordon sanitaire around 
     Cuba, but ended up having to waive the penalties against the 
     international business community mandated by the ill-reputed 
     Helms-Burton legislation. Nor is the U.S. winning many 
     backers with its patently self-serving Florida electoral 
     strategy masked as a foreign policy. The Bush administration 
     has been so obsessed with wooing Miami, that it has fallen 
     victim to its own immoderacy, recently cutting remittances 
     and limiting packages and visits from exiles to their Cuban 
     relatives. By its cut offs, the White House has displayed the 
     same venomous lack of humanity and blind fury that was seen 
     with the Elian Gonzalez affair. Now, even many of those being 
     wooed--Cuban expatriates--are lashing back at Bush for daring 
     to curb family ties in a craven hunt for votes.
       By a series of malevolent initiatives specifically aimed at 
     worsening U.S.-Cuban relations, Secretary of State Colin 
     Powell invoked the latest phase of a foreign policy drive 
     whose anointed mission was to place Florida into President 
     Bush's win column in November, even though such a demarche 
     could mortally wound his already fading reputation on regime 
     issues. The motivation for such a sterile approach was 
     prompted not so much by any genuine threat posed by Cuba to 
     any conceivable U.S. regional security interests, but almost 
     entirely by domestic political factors. The predictable 
     Castro response: defiance in the form of the June 21 
     demonstration, which provided yet another opportunity for the 
     Cuban leader to return to his popular base to seek 
     reaffirmation in a spectacular show of political thunder. But 
     the question remains, when will Washington realize that 
     attempting to isolate Cuba internationally and pressuring 
     it internally at best will only fail or induce more Cubans 
     to attempt immigrating to the U.S.--something that U.S. 
     officials aren't particularly anxious to encourage.
       Despite its specious claim of ``hastening democracy on the 
     island,'' arguably, the Bush administration's latest policies 
     do the opposite--purposely escalating U.S.-Cuban tensions 
     while further legitimizing Castro in the eyes of many 
     islanders. President Bush's mean and nasty acts serve to 
     undermine his professedly lofty intentions, as they confirm 
     Cuba's role as a David daring to stand up to Goliath's 
     benighted outrages. For almost half a century the U.S. has 
     attempted to isolate Castro's Cuba, even though predictably, 
     these initiatives have always backfired. In reality, it is 
     Washington's Cuba policy that has ended in the dock, not 
     Cuba, with only dependent states like Chile and Costa Rica 
     cheering Washington onward.
       Meanwhile, for 12 years the U.N. has voted overwhelmingly 
     to end the U.S. embargo that is almost solely honored by this 
     country. With decades of converting ``democracy'' rhetoric 
     into self-serving demagoguery aimed at asphyxiating the Cuban 
     economy and immiserating its population, Washington's 
     relations with Havana remain non-negotiable, beyond the 
     purview of the constructive engagement now routinely employed 
     toward Libya, North Korea, Vietnam and China.
       Nor would Castro's death instantly transform Washington's 
     embargo strategy into a success story. In fact, it might only 
     underline that the U.S. fomented the deterioration of Cuban 
     society while it bided its time for the right moment to 
     initiate yet another intrusion into the internal affairs of a 
     hemispheric nation. Clearly, neither Castro nor any other 
     likely successor has indicated any intention to fall on their 
     sword to guarantee another Bush term. Meanwhile Washington's 
     thinking by now is so petrified that it is incapable of 
     moving past its Cold War strategy of continually escalating 
     threats and bringing distress upon an innocent population, to 
     encourage what it disingenuously calls ``democratic change.''

                          ____________________