Cuba-sponsored terrorism?

[JS_Princeton]

In the New York Times today was the following quote on the part of Sec. Rumsfeld:

To the extent that Russia decides that it wants to parade its relationship with countries like Iraq and Libya and Syria and Cuba and North Korea, it sends a signal out across the globe that that is what Russia thinks is a good thing to do, to deal with the terrorist states.

This got me to thinking, I’ve seen the evidene for Iraq, Libya, Syria, but what is the evidence against Cuba?

After some searching on Google I came up with these citations from the US State Dept. From their 2000 list of states that sponsored terrorism:

Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives and maintained ties to state sponsors and Latin American insurgents.

Sounded to me like grandstanding our of the mid-twentieth century. US-Latin American policy is hardly an unbiased judge in this area of who is a “terrorist”. Of course, the insurgents are Marxist and we call them “terrorists” while they are considered “revolutionaries” or “freedom fighters” by others. If one reads any Latin American history it is clear that there was not much to be said about “good guys/bad guys” in these conflicts. Did we label the Kosovans terrorists when the rose up against the Serbians? I digress. The point of the matter is there are terrorists that are much more insidiuous than Latin American insurgents (like those who blew up Pan Am Flight 103, for example).

Still, I thought there might be more to this labelling of Cuba as a terrorist haven. I found a statement issued by the US Embassy in Gautemala which seemed to me to amount to little more than a rant against Castro. To its credit it did list some of the evidence:

Cuba’s signature of U.N. counterterrorism conventions notwithstanding, Castro continued to view terror as a legitimate revolutionary tactic. The Cuban Government continued to allow at least 20 Basque ETA members to reside in Cuba as privileged guests and provided some degree of safe haven and support to members of the Colombian FARC and ELN groups. In August, a Cuban spokesman revealed that Sinn Fein’s official representative for Cuba and Latin America, Niall Connolly, who was one of three Irish Republican Army members arrested in Colombia on suspicion of providing explosives training to the FARC, had been based in Cuba for five years. In addition, the recent arrest in Brazil of the leader of a Chilean terrorist group, the Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez (FPMR), has raised the strong possibility that in the mid-1990s, the Cuban Government harbored FPMR terrorists wanted for murder in Chile. The arrested terrorist told Brazilian authorities he had traveled through Cuba on his way to Brazil. Chilean investigators had traced calls from FPMR relatives in Chile to Cuba following an FPMR prison break in 1996, but the Cuban Government twice denied extradition requests, claiming that the wanted persons were not in Cuba and the phone numbers were incorrect.

Again, though, all of this seems rather like political grandstanding to me and pretty much dated accusations of terrorism. The Basque-ETA vs. Spain controversy is hardly straightforward in its labelling. And what does “some degree of safe haven” mean? Aren’t the Saudis guilty of that for other terrorist groups? The rest of the accusations are leveled against Cuba in defiance of the fact that it was the Cuban government that put a stop to those terrorism-linked actions of the expatriots living in Cuba. Isn’t this somewhat akin to blaming the US for allowing illegal cells to operate inside its borders? Weren’t these groups stopped by the Cuban government? Why is the Cuban government being blamed for harboring them? Isn’t that like blaming the US for arming bin Laden during the mujhadeen uprising in Afghanistan way back when? Someone enlighten me. Following this is the quote:

Numerous U.S. fugitives continued to live on the island, including Joanne Chesimard, wanted in the United States for the murder in 1973 of a New Jersey police officer and living as a guest of the Castro regime since 1979.

This sparked my interest. I did some research and came up with this AP article where the following interesting fact was laid to bare:

There is no extradition treaty between Cuba and the United States.

In effect, doesn’t this mean that there is no legal way for Cuba to transfer over criminals to the United States and vice-versa? Why should we expect that Cuba hand over criminals convicted in our justice system if we are not legally bound to do the same for them? Perhaps I’m missing something.

So, my question is: Should Cuba be labelled a terrorist state? Foreign policy experts are welcome to reply.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

IANA foreign policy expert, but I vote “nawwww…” I mean, why? What would be the point, other than to give the already paranoid conspiracy theorists another real-live Enemy? “Oooh, the Government says that terrorists are massing off the coast of Florida, we must stock up on freeze-dried foods and practice with our shotguns…” And the next thing you know, they’ll be building bomb shelters in the backyards in Sarasota.

I kinda automatically discount about 75% whenever the Government tells me, in great excitement, that it’s found some more terrorists in some otherwise inoffensive nation (oh, wait, Cuba isn’t “inoffensive”, because they were ALLIES with our hereditary enemy the GODLESS RUSSKIE COMMIES, and so we need to keep watch over those Godless Cubans at all costs… :rolleyes: )

Fidel’s old, things are changing in the world, more and more American tourists are visiting Cuba (albeit the long way around), and more significantly, more American companies are finding loopholes that will allow them to Sell Stuff to the Godless Cubans, and ideology and pointless trade embargoes be damned. I give it five years–ten, tops–before Fidel is gone and Cuba joins the rest of the world in reaping the profits from thousands of puking-drunk Spring Break Collegians.

[sailor]

I can’t see anything in that document which would allow the US to accuse Cuba of supporting terrorism. To begin with, if Cuba is harboring people wanted in Spain or any country other than the US, that is a bilateral matter and absolutely no freaking business of the US. So, restricting ourselves to US-Cuban matters, it does seem there may be in Cuba a few people wanted by the US. Of course, there are a lot of people in the US wanted by Cuba so the situation is hardly unilateral. If the US wants someone extradited they should address that with the Cuban government but since they do not have any diplomatic relations well, tough cookies.

[samclem]

Aren’t the Saudis guilty of that for other terrorist groups? …Isn’t this somewhat akin to blaming the US for allowing illegal cells to operate inside its borders? …Isn’t that like blaming the US for arming bin Laden during the mujhadeen uprising in Afghanistan way back when?

Someone enlighten me.

I don’t think you need to be “enlightened.” You have it pretty much right.

[shagadelicmysteryman]

It was fun living in the American World Empire, but, IMHO, the shit is about to hit the jet engine, if you know what I mean. It’s funny, in it’s own sadistic way. The Bush Administration, more to the point the war hawks,(Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice…etc.) are so stuck on revenge. Now, dont’ take me as being “Non-american” for saying that or anything else that might wonder onto this post.

As was mentioned before, the Basque-ETA problem between Spain and Cuba, is between those two countries. The United States has nothing to do with it, unless they pose a direct threat to interests, etc. overseas or at home. And I honestly don’t think that they do.

As for the Terrorism Labeling Debate as a whole, it seems to be a crock of poo to me. Sure, some of the Sept. 11 terrorists did come from Saudi Arabia. But, they were in this country for weeks. And, I’d bet money that there still are cells within this country. So, in effect, shouldn’t we label ourselves as a terrorist state?

Now, you could say that,“Well, we haven’t found any of them because they aren’t here, and Jonny Ashcroft and the FBI are doing everything they can to look for these terrorists.” I don’t doubt that they are. I’d hope to think that they infringed on Constitutional Rights for a “good reason”. The point I’m getting at is that I’m sure the Saudi’s are doing what they can too. Perhaps people have over looked the power and effect that this radical muslim movement has over the world, not to mention, it’s HOME. I do have some sympathy for the Saudi government. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they aid us through a war with Iraq, Iran…the rest of the world, for that matter, they have to answer to al-Qaeda and other radical factions. And if they turn their back on al-Qaeda, or actually do try to route them out and are unsuccessful, they have to answer to the US.

I hope that someone has the common sense to listen to common sense in this “War On Terror”. The hardline that the US government is taking is growing very unpopular in the eyes of the rest of the world as the days go on. And there are many, many eyes in the world. We are not alone. It’s time to realize that.

[JS_Princeton]

Well, thanks to all who responded to this in vain attempt to start a debate. I guess people aren’t generally up on the whole “why does the US paint Cuba as evil?” issue at this point. It just seemed utterly stupid to me that Cuba would be put in the same group as Iraq and Iran, as if they had any terroristic designs at all upon the world… or are we still blaming them for sending troops to Angola? Frankly, the utter stupidity with which the current administration (and past administrations) have approached the issue is embarassing. Seems to me that if Florida would suddenly depopulate and lose some of its political clout, the very first thing that would happen would be renormalization of relations with Cuba. As it is right now a few, well-organized Cuban expatriots with enormous chips on their shoulders are basically steering US Foreign Policy on this issue. It appears that they have been able to get at least two US Cabinet-level Departments (State and Defense) to snap their heals together and acquiese immediately to orders that a smear campaign against the present Cuban government continue to be carried out. It’s really quite sad.

[Guinastasia]

It’s because of a 40+ year hissy fit.

It’s spite.

[sailor]

>> a few, well-organized Cuban expatriots with enormous chips on their shoulders are basically steering US Foreign Policy on this issue

They are US citizens and they vote. We may disagree with the results but that’s democracy at work for you.

What is ironic is that Cuba is eager to establish better relations with the US and it is the US rejecting that an then the US complains about Cuba not being cooperative.

[Guinastasia]

Because “cooperative” would mean booting Castro. It ain’t gonna happen.

[JS_Princeton]

I must admit I am completely puzzled by US foreign policy that is decidedly against particular leaders. It seems to me that while the US sings the tune of wanting free and fair elections and open democracies, the US government wants them only if it likes the outcome. Palestinians are allowed to vote for a new leader, but don’t let them vote for Arafat (Bush has said as much). Iraqis are allowed to vote for a new leader, but don’t let them vote for Sadam. Cubans should be allowed to vote for any leader they want, as long as it ain’t Castro. Now, I’m not saying I’m in favor of any of these particular people personally, but shouldn’t it be left up to the people of the country to decide in free and fair elections who should lead them? Why should the US assume to get an automatic veto in who gets to lead Cuba, for example? It seems reasonable to assume that Castro would win any election in Cuba held today if every person in the world was listed as a potential candidate. (Of course, I don’t have any studies on this to back me up, but I do know that Castro remains pretty popular with most Cubans who are living on the island).

So, is US foreign policy stated to be in favor of democracy, or only when it serves US interests? I’m confused.

[TwistofFate]

Would the US be willing to hand over the various CIA operatives that tried to asassinate Castro over the years?

[JS_Princeton]

To hijack my own thread, this story was brought to my attention by someone I know when talking about this issue. So, Jebeddiah Bush is hoping to dissuade American investors and Minnesota governor Jesse “the Body” Ventura in particular from visitng Cuba by saying that it “simply is a bad credit risk”. What’s his rationale for this? Well…

Speaking out against government policies, fighting for what you believe, or attempting to change the established order in an effort to create a better society will gain you the label of an ‘independent’ or ‘maverick’ in the United States…In Cuba, you are called a ‘dissenter’ and an ‘enemy of the revolution’ – and then summarily thrown in jail.

While the human rights violations are of concern, how does it make Cuba a credit risk? Excuse me, Jeb Bush, is investing with China, a country with similar policies, a credit risk? The answer is at the end of the CNN article. Since the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, Cuba has become the 54th (up from 138th) ranked purchaser of Agricultural products from the US(out of 180) buying $109 million in the last eight months alone. I am at a loss for how someone could represent say Cuba is therefore a “credit risk” with a straight face. Either the US is consistent in its policies, in which case the “Made In China” label has to go, or it’s not. Which does it look like has the upper hand right now?