The Center for Democracy in the Americas
Donate
 
CDA in the News
The New York Times
A New Opening in Cuba
Letter to the Editor:
Published: May 8, 2008

Re “In Stores, Hints of Change Under New Castro” (front page, May 2):

In my three trips to Cuba this year — before, during and after the election of Raúl Castro — Cubans were talking, with greater candor and hope than I’ve encountered during more than 30 trips since 2001.

The signal sent by the reforms, such as moving control over agriculture from Havana to the municipal level or allowing Cubans to buy cellphones or stay in hotels, is that after 50 years the path forward is now toward decentralization and honoring the desire of Cubans for more autonomy.

What catches the attention of Cubans is that they asked for these changes in a continuing national debate, the government is responding, and they now expect that these reforms will produce an even greater opening.

Rather than condemning the reforms as cosmetic, as our government does, our foreign allies are commending Cuba’s government to encourage it to do more. By contrast, no Cuban tells us that United States policy has a constructive role. As one said, “You don’t understand what’s going on here, and we don’t care.”

Sarah Stephens Director,
Center for Democracy in the Americas
Washington, May 2, 2008

The Havana Note
Call a Doctor! Florida has Fidel-o-phobia
By Sarah Stephens and Gail Reed
Published: Apr 8, 2008

Even in retirement, Fidel Castro exerts outsized influence over our country’s political life. Even now, he may affect the access Floridians have to health care.

How can this be? To teach Castro a lesson, a state legislator is fighting to ban American doctors, educated in Cuba, from practicing medicine in Florida, and already a committee has acted to move this proposal forward.

This story, about a small and largely symbolic issue, speaks volumes about how Fidel-o-phobia can cause even our most well-meaning public officials to do the strangest and most self-defeating things.

Nearly a decade ago, President Castro founded the Latin American School of Medicine, also called “ELAM,” where foreign students are given a medical education for free. They come largely from developing countries’ poor and indigenous communities where medical care is desperately needed, and they are encouraged to return to those communities to practice. ELAM is a classic example of Cuba’s application of soft-power in its international diplomacy.

Over a hundred American students—mainly from minority communities-- are now enrolled there. Who are these students? They are whip smart, highly motivated kids, desperate to become physicians, yet unable to afford a medical education in the United States, or unwilling to shoulder the $200,000 debt that now hits the average US medical student the day after graduation.

So, they go to Cuba, learn Spanish (coming home bilingual), take bridging courses in sciences if necessary and spend six years being trained as physicians in Cuba alongside students from 28 other countries. After which, the hope is, they will return to the United States and practice medicine in some of the thousands of our country’s under-served communities.

Is a Cuban medical education any good? According to experts we’ve consulted, the answer is yes. Dr. Fitzhugh Mullan, a former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General, says Cuban medical education is well-respected and that Cuba’s achievement in scaling up physician training is an important example for other countries. The first US graduate has already passed his medical boards and is in his first year of residency in New York City. With the latest class, a total of 17 will have graduated by this summer.

Enter Rep. Eddy Gonzalez.

His bill, HB 685, which was passed by the Healthcare Council, and will now go to a floor vote, will strictly prohibit any of these American medical students currently enrolled at ELAM from practicing medicine in Florida.

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, this would make Florida the first state in the nation to ban all physicians who graduated from any school in a particular country.

Even though Rep. Gonzalez has called facets of Cuba’s health care system "state of the art," he says that students educated in Cuba, whose government he despises, “do not possess the basic judgment and character required for the ethical practice of medicine in Florida."

Rep. Gonzalez vastly underestimates the idealism and the devotion to medicine possessed by these doctors, and nothing in his legislation will change the Cuban system. What it will do is stop Florida from getting young, talented physicians to practice where they are surely needed.

Dr. Karl Altenburger, president of the Florida Medical Association, calls the state’s doctor shortage severe. He’s said that young doctors don’t want to come to Florida to practice; the state lacks internships, residency programs, and fellowships. The average age of doctors in Florida is 51 and a quarter of the state’s physicians are over 60.

Florida, the fourth most populous state, is ranked 20th in its number of active physicians by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Tad Fisher, executive Vice President of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians, said that Florida needs an additional 12,000 primary care physicians by 2020 to meet its health care needs.

And there are plenty of underserved people in Gonzalez’s home district: the Health Council of South Florida’s Miami-Dade County’s 2007 Community Health Report Card gave “access to health care” a pretty scary “F”.

Florida acknowledges these problems and advertises on the internet to recruit physicians to treat patients in the state who don’t have adequate access to doctors. It even offers waivers to attract foreign-born, foreign educated physicians to serve. But American students educated in Cuba? They need not apply.

When Floridians come down with Fidel-o-phobia, they torment each other (and the rest of us) just to show Castro up. More often than not, we end up with silly ideas like this which hurt us, not him. Now that Fidel’s retired, we should stop dancing at the end of his string, look squarely at our own interests, and decide for ourselves the right way to pursue our nation’s ideals.

-- Sarah Stephens and Gail Reed

Gail Reed M.S., is a journalist who serves as International Director of Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC). Sarah Stephens is Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas.

The Chicago Tribune
Cuba lifts ban on locals staying in hotels
By Pablo Bachelet and Frances Robles
Published: Mar 31, 2008

MIAMI - Cuba's so-called "tourism apartheid" -- which has long prohibited locals from staying at hotels -- ends midnight Monday, according to news agencies in Havana.

The move ends a ban that many Cubans had fixated on as a prime example of the inequities and hardships they faced under Fidel Castro's regime. The lifting comes five weeks after Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, took over the nation's presidency, and just days after he ended the ban on Cubans owning personal mobile phones, computers and household appliances.

But the measure is largely symbolic: a night's stay at a luxury hotel in Cuba can cost more than $200 -- which is just about what the average Cuban earns in a year.

Cubans were prohibited from staying at hotels even if someone else paid the tab.

Reuters news agency reported Monday that now Cubans can also rent cars and go to beaches once restricted to tourists.

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a fierce critic of the Castro government, called the lifting of the hotel restrictions "pathetic."

"There might be many superficial changes like this hotel maneuver and making DVD players and computers legal, but what the Cuban people want are true changes, like freedom and democracy," she said in an e-mail. "Raul may make these nominal rather than real changes because most Cubans can't afford hotel stays. "What a dismal picture that legalizing microwaves and hotel stays are considered reforms," she said. "It's pathetic."

But those who are pushing for an easing of sanctions on Cuba had a different take on Raul Castro's reforms. Many experts view Raul Castro's early decisions as positive steps, even if they do not come with democratic elections and freedom of speech.

"This is a real reform, because it speaks to the desire of Cubans to have more autonomy over their own lives," said Sarah Stephens, the director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, an advocacy organization that takes lawmakers on trips to the island. "It is part of a piece with cellphones and agrarian reforms, and when the Cuban government allows more private decisions, that is something our government should recognize and applaud. It doesn't, but it should."

Carlos Saladrigas, the co-chairman of the moderate Cuba Study Group, said the lifting of the hotel restriction was "a very positive move" by Raul Castro but noted that without more economic reforms "the tourist apartheid will shift from a political apartheid to an economic apartheid."

"None of these measures put food on Cubans' tables," he said. "That's what's really needed."

Reuters and the Associated Press news agencies interviewed hotel managers who said they were informed that any Cuban with a national ID card could check in starting Monday night.

Like other guests, they will be charged in convertible pesos worth 24 times the regular pesos earned by state employees, the AP reported.

There was no official announcement in state-controlled media on the lifting of the ban on hotel rooms and other tourist services, and word-of-mouth spread slowly through the Cuban capital.

Inside the world-renowned luxurious but somewhat run-down Hotel Nacional, it was business as usual, Havana news outlets reported. Receptionists at several other hotels reported no immediate spike in reservations, the AP said.

Other tourism employees said they had not yet been officially informed of the change.

The Huffington Post
Time to Retire America's Failed Cuba Policy
By Sarah Stephens
Published: Feb 19, 2008

This is the event that fifty years of U.S. policy was designed to stop.

Fidel Castro has announced his retirement. He will be replaced in a peaceful succession, without the violent upheaval that U.S. policy makers have been predicting since the 1960s.
Now that Fidel Castro has announced his retirement, it's time to retire our Cold War era Cuba policy. It failed.

Every U.S. president since Eisenhower has tried to kill or topple Fidel Castro and replace Cuba's government and economic system with something more to our liking. They never succeeded.

It was the express purpose of the U.S. embargo, with sanctions more comprehensive than any we impose on Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria to stop this transition. But it couldn't.

For years, the U.S. embargo has been rebuked in lop-sided votes in the U.N. General Assembly. On October 30, 2007, when we were last drubbed by a margin of 184 to 4 (and one abstention), not a single country in South America, Central America or the Caribbean supported our policy. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, three countries praised by President Bush one week earlier for their support of U.S. policy against Cuba, joined the condemnation -- so did Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, a nation whose democracy was born with the help of U.S. sanctions.

As the Cuba embargo sullies our image around the world, it undermines the national interest and our highest values here at home. The embargo sacrifices the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel. It cruelly divides Cuban families on both sides of the Florida straits. Trade sanctions cost U.S. businesses about $1 billion annually, and deny U.S. citizens access to vaccines and other medical treatments. Enforcing the embargo drains resources from the war on terror. By isolating the American people from the Cuban people, we stop our citizens from doing what Americans do best; we can't offer Cubans our support or our ideas, and we're unable to benefit from what they could offer us.

I have been to Cuba close to thirty times in the last seven years and I have spoken to Cubans of every stripe -- fans of the revolution and diehard opponents of President Castro.

Cubans by their nature have vastly divergent opinions, except on one fundamental point: it is Cubans living on the island -- not politicians in Washington, not their kinsmen in Miami -- who must decide for themselves what happens next in Cuba. They cherish their sovereignty, they reject violence and instability, and they want the United States to respect those values as much as they do, especially now that they can see a future past President Fidel Castro and beyond the 50th year of their revolution.

There is a debate happening in Cuba right now, triggered by Raúl Castro on economic reform that is remarkable in its sweep. Leaders have spoken to us with unusual candor about the inability of Cubans to keep pace with prices, but they are committed to raising living standards in ways that are consistent with the preservation of Cuba's political system. We have to have clear minds about their intentions for this debate, its limits, and where it might lead.

Now would be a perfect time to send the long overdue signal that the United States is no threat to Cuba's national security, that we honor the aspirations of average Cubans, and that we are capable of having a constructive relationship with their government.

If President Bush cannot answer the call to history that has been issued in Havana, perhaps his successor will respond with greater imagination when he or she takes office in Washington next year.

People here should not misunderstand this historic moment: the Cubans we know, even determined political opponents of Fidel Castro, are proud of their country, proud of its accomplishments, and persuaded that only Cubans in Cuba -- not politicians in Washington or hardliners in Miami -- have the right and responsibility to determine their own destiny. We owe them that opportunity, now more than ever.

The Miami Herald
Anti-embargo groups call for lifting sanctions
By PABLO BACHELET
Published: Feb 19, 2008

Several groups that have lobbied against U.S. sanctions on Cuba seized Fidel Castro's retirement from official power Tuesday to renew their calls for lifting the sanctions.

''The United States has just spent almost 50 years trying to stop an event that has just taken place,'' said Sarah Stephens, who heads the Center for Democracy in the Americas, which takes members of Congress on visits to the island.

''Fidel Castro's retirement and his peaceful replacement with new leadership in Cuba is the clearest possible demonstration that U.S. policy has failed,'' she added.

Vicki Huddleston, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and former head of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana from 1999 to 2002, called the resignation ``one of the most anti-climactic moments in Cuba's last 50 years.''

''While the political demise of Fidel Castro will diminish his influence over his brother Raúl Castro, who at 76 has been running Cuba for the last 18 months, it will not change the course of Cuba's Revolution,'' she said.

''The Bush administration is likely to stick to its current isolationist policy, reducing further the ability of the United States to effectively press for change in Cuba by empowering the Cuban people,'' Huddleston added.

Mavis Anderson, with the Latin America Working Group, which advocates lifting Cuba sanctions, said the administration and Congress should ``begin an immediate process of engagement, dialogue and policy change.''

''Opening up unrestricted travel to Cuba would be a good beginning,'' she said. ``It is America, not Cuba, that has been isolated by our policy.''

Jake Colvin, the director of USA*Engage, a business group that lobbies for lifting sanctions, said the resignation brought ``a new urgency for President Bush to show that America is open to a different relationship with Cuba.''

He said there was a window of opportunity to change policies that would benefit U.S. business and security interests.

''If we do not,'' he said, ``the United States risks alienating another generation of Cubans and pushing the Cuban government farther into the arms of countries like Venezuela and China.''

The Los Angeles Times
Change May be Brewing in Cuba
By Carol J. Williams
Published: Jan 20, 2008


Analysts see signs of modest political and economic reform in the 18 months since Fidel Castro temporarily stepped down.

MIAMI -- Cubans waited hours in line for tickets, packed Havana's cinemas and watched with rapt attention as "The Lives of Others," a chilling account of East German secret-police repression of communism's doubters, arrived in the Cuban capital last month.

Was the debut of the Academy Award-winning film two years after its release another signal that Cuba's Communist leaders are open to reform? Or was the cinematic snapshot of life two decades ago and half a world away more reflective of their confidence that Cubans wouldn't see themselves in the picture?

Analysts of the secretive Cuban power structure see signs of modest political and economic change emerging on the island in the 18 months since an ailing Fidel Castro temporarily ceded power to his brother Raul and retreated to pen his thoughts and memoirs.

Raul Castro has urged young Cubans to expose government shortcomings in providing adequate food, transportation and housing. The idea of giving idle land to farmers has been floated for the first time since private estates were nationalized in the 1960s.

Havana authorities also have proposed compensating Cuban employees of foreign companies in hard currency, in a land where Fidel Castro has long fought the dollar's encroachment because of the class division it inflicts between those who have convertible money and those who don't.

But the most radical transition may come as soon as this spring, with 81-year-old Fidel Castro hinting that he may relinquish the Cuban presidency after 49 years as supreme leader of the Marxist-Leninist state he created.

In a letter read on state-run television in late December, Castro caused a bit of a stir by saying he wouldn't "cling to positions" or "obstruct the path of younger people" aspiring to lead Cuba.

He didn't demur when his name was again included on the slate of Communist Party candidates for the National Assembly to be rubber-stamped in an election today. And after a two-hour meeting with the Cuban leader last week, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva proclaimed Castro fit, lucid and "ready to take over his historic political role," raising expectations of a comeback.

But those familiar with the Havana hierarchy predict that the elder Castro will take his seat in the National Assembly when it convenes in March but decline another five-year stint as head of state.

"I still think it's significant that he made those comments about making way for the next generation," said Sarah Stephens, head of the Center for Democracy in the Americas. "If I were going to guess, which is all any of us can do, I think it's going to have everything to do with his recovery, and there's no way for us to know if he has been experiencing setbacks, whether he's recovering quickly or slowly."

As part of a U.S. congressional delegation that visited Havana late last year, Stephens met with National Assembly leader Ricardo Alarcon and with a senior Communist Party official, Fernando Ramirez. They denied that any transition was underway in their country, she said, casting the recent inklings of internal reflection as a continuation of their ever-evolving revolution.

But Stephens pointed to the December film festival screening of "The Lives of Others" as a sign of changing attitudes about what can be discussed and debated.

This month, Cuban TV aired a 2003 documentary on Havana's Industriales baseball team, a film that had been held back from the public for nearly five years because it included interviews with players who later defected. Among them were Kendry Morales, now with the Angels, and New York Mets pitcher Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez.

Jaime Suchlicki, director of the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, sees the unusual airings and musings circulating in Havana as "tokens of liberalization" that signal an attempt to tinker with a failed system rather than reform it.

"I don't think any of these things is significant," he said. "If they made significant changes in the agriculture sector, if they imported significant amounts of consumer goods from China, people would think things are getting better. But things are really tough right now."

Nonetheless, Suchlicki, whose analysis often reflects the views of Miami's anti-Castro exiles, shares the expectation of other Cuba watchers that if Fidel Castro hasn't fully recovered his health and vigor by the March assembly opening, he will step down as president and he and his brother Raul, who is 76, will make way for a younger head of state.

Many expect Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage, a 56-year-old former physician, to take the helm, which would open the way for the architect of a previous reform period to tackle the economic problems that most concern Cubans. Monthly income on the island averages about $15, and though Cubans pay almost nothing for healthcare and a monthly ration basket, food costs rival those in U.S. supermarkets.

"Finally, the Cuban elections are interesting!" said Paolo Spadoni, an associate professor of political science at central Florida's Rollins College who did his doctoral work on Cuba's economy. "Before, everyone knew what was going to happen. This time there is quite a bit of uncertainty about whether he will retain his post as president."

The elder Castro was "re-centralizing" the economy before he fell ill, an attempt to roll back the modest private enterprise permitted in the early 1990s to get through the lean years after the Soviet Union's billions of dollars' worth of annual subsidies to Cuba ended. Those reforms were designed and implemented by Lage and enthusiastically embraced by entrepreneurial Cubans.

The recent resurrection of those strategies signals that a fresh reform phase is in the offing, Spadoni said.

"They've said they can't perform miracles, that it is going to go step by step and within a socialist framework," Spadoni said of the post-Fidel transition.

"But reform will happen. You don't raise expectations or stimulate debate if you have no intention to deliver."

The Sun-Sentinel
SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL.com
Cubans, world wait to see if Fidel Castro retires
Published: December 19 2007

HAVANA - The lengthy letter signed by Fidel Castro appeared Tuesday on the front pages of two state dailies, but many Cubans in the capital were unfazed by the news that the man who has dominated the island since 1959 might not retake power.

"It's time to move on," said Enrique Marrero, 82, who was more interested in talk about Cuba's national baseball series in a Havana park frequented by sports fans. "He needs to open a path for young people. That's the law of life."

Outside of Cuba, however, policy experts, exiles and presidential candidates speculated about the way the transition of power will play out in the coming months.

"His retirement is like writing the final chapter of the cold war," said Sarah Stephens, executive director for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Democracy in the Americas, which advocates the lifting of travel restrictions to Cuba.

Since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006 and handing the presidency to his brother Raúl, Fidel Castro has played more of an emeritus role. With his health said to be improving, he was nominated on Dec. 2 as a candidate for the National Assembly. The assembly meets in March to choose a 31-member Council of State, which will hand-pick the next president. Only assembly members qualify for the top job, which Fidel Castro has held since its creation in 1976.

Fidel Castro's lingering presence on the political scene is seen as an impediment to his brother's efforts to implement important economic reforms.
"Fidel's illness but not death and now this further yielding allows Raúl and the others around him who are running the country to manage expectations and keep them under control, but allow this process of debate and slow but incremental reform to go forward," Julia Sweig, a Latin America expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said in a conference call.

Peter Kornbluh, director of the Cuba Documentation Project at the National Security Archive, said the statement affirms the younger Castro's control: "It is confirmation that Raúl is in charge."

Stephens said Castro's statement "puts people on notice that a change is in the offing and, more importantly, it puts Fidel Castro himself in charge of writing the script."

Omar Lopez, human rights director of the Cuban American National Foundation, said Cuban Americans were growing tired over speculation about Castro's future, waiting instead for real political and economic changes. "Everyone is waiting for the next chapter," he said.

In a letter read by an announcer on state television Monday night, Fidel Castro said, "My elemental duty is not to cling to positions, or even less to obstruct the path of younger people, but to share experiences and ideas whose modest worth comes from the exceptional era in which I lived."
The vague statement was the first time the 81-year-old head of state has suggested he would not return to power in the 16 months since he had emergency stomach surgery and handed over power to younger brother. Castro ended the letter with admiration for Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer, who still is working at 100.

"I think like Niemeyer that you have to be of consequence up to the end," he said.

On the sprawling University of Havana campus, a 26-year-old math teacher who declined to give her name said she was unmoved by word that Castro might step aside permanently.

"The regime lives on," she said. "It will be a long time before we see concrete changes in our lives." 

The Huffington Post
THE BLOGS -- POLITICS
The Terrorists Among US
Published: October 6 2007

This piece was co-written by CDA Executive Director Sarah Stephens and Peter Kornbluh, who directs the Cuba Documentation Project at the National Security Archive, a non-profit research center in Washington D.C.

Think of how angry Americans would be if Pakistan's government let Osama bin Laden emerge from his cave of refuge and take up open residence in Islamabad?

A scene just like that is the reality here in the United States where Luis Posada Carriles, who ranks in the top ten list of the world's most prolific terrorists, is living freely in Florida--despite his known involvement in blowing up a civilian airliner and other bombings and assassination attempts over more than forty years. Since May, when a Federal judge tossed out the minor charges of immigration fraud leveled by Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department, Posada has been enjoying life in Miami's hard-line Cuban exile community. The U.S. media has all but forgotten about him. His victims, however, remain seared by this remarkable injustice and so should we.

Today, after all, marks the anniversary of the mid-air destruction of Cubana Airlines flight 455, which took the lives of 73 passengers and crew, including the Cuban Olympic Fencing team and a group of teenage Guyanese science students on their way to Cuba to go to medical school. Their families will commemorate this day of loss, as they have for 31 years, wondering whether Posada and his co-conspirator Orlando Bosch--who is also living freely in Miami--will ever be brought to justice.

But for those of us in the United States, the case of Luis Posada Carriles is not only about a long overdue legal reckoning for the victims of terrorism, it is about the hypocrisy of the purported leader in the global fight against international terrorism now harboring a renowned purveyor of terrorist violence. "The United States cannot tolerate the inherent inhumanity of terrorism as a way of settling disputes," declared a 1989 Justice Department ruling that Orlando Bosch should remain detained or deported after he illegally returned to the United States from Venezuela. "We must look on terrorism as a universal evil, even if it is directed toward those with whom we have no political sympathy."

That principle was ignored by the administration of George H.W. Bush which, urged on by politically powerful rightwing Cuban exiles in Florida, set Bosch free in 1990. Following in his father's footsteps, George W's administration has politicized the Posada case as well, allowing him to go free and flaunting the credibility of the U.S. war on terror in the process.

Make no mistake, this former CIA asset and demolition trainer is a resolute and unrepentant advocate of terror. As early as 1965, declassified CIA intelligence reports cite Posada's operations to blow up ships and other targets, financed by benefactors in Miami. Documents uncovered in his office in Caracas link Posada to a string of sabotage attacks on consulates and travel agencies that did business with Cuba in the summer of 1976. Those same records contained information on the route of Cubana flight 455.

Indeed, the part Posada played in the first atrocity of aviation terrorism in the Western Hemisphere is especially well corroborated. Declassified FBI reports place him in meetings in Caracas where the attack on the plane was planned. According to a secret CIA intelligence report, a high level informant overheard Posada declaring, "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner and Orlando has the details" only days before the plane exploded after take off from Barbados. Confessions by the two Venezuelans who brought the bomb on board--plastic explosives stuffed into a large tube of Colgate toothpaste--and who worked for Posada, noted that their first calls after the airliner plunged into the ocean were to Posada's office. "The bus has gone off the cliff and the dogs are dead," they reported.

Both Posada and Bosch were arrested in Caracas. Posada was held in Venezuela for nine years for the aircraft bombing but escaped from prison in 1985. (He then went to El Salvador to work on the Reagan administration's illicit contra resupply operation.) In the spring and summer of 1997, he orchestrated a bombing campaign against Havana hotels and discotheques that resulted in the death of an Italian businessman; "That Italian was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time," Posada noted in an interview with the New York Times a year later in which he publicly took responsibility for the attacks. "I sleep like a baby."

Three years later, at age 73, he was caught in Panama with 34 pounds of C-4 explosives, which he planned to use to blow up an auditorium where Fidel Castro was scheduled to speak.

After serving only four years of a prison sentence, Posada and three co-conspirators were inexplicably pardoned and freed; still wanted in Caracas for the bombing of flight 455, Posada became a fugitive once again. But in March 2005, he illegally entered the United States and surfaced in Miami, sufficiently comfortable in the cradle of the anti-Castro exile community to announce his presence to the media and actually seek political asylum. If Orlando Bosch could live freely in Miami, why couldn't Luis Posada?

For two months, the Bush administration basically pretended that he was not there. But this is the post 9/11 world. Massive and embarrassing publicity finally forced Bush's hand. On May 17, 2005, DHS agents detained Posada on illegal entry charges, and then indicted for lying to immigration authorities on how he came to the United States.

Yes, you read that correctly: one of the world's most infamous terrorists charged as an illegal immigrant. Using the counter-terrorism provisions of the Patriot Act, the administration could have certified Posada as a terrorist danger and detained him indefinitely. But apparently the Justice Department viewed his brand of political violence is different than those other terrorism suspects with Middle Eastern names.

The Administration could have also accepted Venezuela's formal petition for Posada's extradition. After all, Posada is a naturalized Venezuelan citizen; the crime was planned in Caracas, and he is a fugitive from justice from Venezuela. But Bush has his priorities: it is more important to mollify rightwing Republican Cuban-American voters in Florida who would view Posada's extradition as a betrayal and as a victory for Chavez and Castro, than to turn over a terrorist to the country that has a legitimate claim to hold him accountable for the first act of airborne terror in the hemisphere, a devastating crime.

The charade of detaining Posada on immigration violations has not been lost on the U.S. courts. Indeed, last May a Federal Judge dismissed the entire illegal entry case against Posada, citing prosecutorial misconduct and incompetence. Without even a slap on the wrist, he returned to Miami a free man, limited only in his movements by the ironic DHS decision to place him on a government "no fly" list.

To date, Bush has made a mockery of his motto that no nation should harbor terrorists and all nations should take steps to bring those who commit acts of terrorism to justice. If his administration will not certify and detain Posada for the international criminal he is, if his administration will not extradite Posada to Venezuela because Bush doesn't like Chavez, the administration still has one option to redeem itself: the Justice Department can indict Posada for the hotel bombings in Havana ten years ago for which he has publicly claimed credit.

The known body of evidence in this case is strong: the FBI has an informant who witnessed Posada's meetings in Guatemala where the bombings were organized, and saw a bag of 23 tubes of plastic explosives in the offices Posada used. Couriers have told how they were recruited by Posada associates to transport the explosives in Prell shampoo bottles and in their shoes. Federal authorities are also in possession of an August 1997 fax, in Posada's own handwriting and signed "Solo"--one of his nom de guerres--stating that "if there is no publicity, the job is useless" and arranging for funds to be "sent by Western Union from New Jersey." Additional evidence was gathered during a rare FBI trip to Havana late last year and presumably turned over to a federal grand jury which as been impaneled in Newark to hear this case.

With a new attorney general designate soon to face confirmation hearings, the Senate Judiciary Committee has the opportunity to voice its concerns about the way the Justice Department has allowed a known terrorist to go free. Retired judge Michael Mukasey, who is known for being tough on terrorism, should be given every opportunity to disassociate himself from the political contamination of this case and to commit the Justice Department to finally holding Posada accountable for his acts of international violence.

Prosecuting Posada matters. It would put our country on the side of justice for a crime that took place in Cuba that was inspired politically to hurt the Castro regime. This, in turn, would send a signal to Cuba and the world that Washington is serious about deterring acts by terrorists using U.S. soil as their base of operations. It would end a dramatic and hypocritical inconsistency in our policy toward terrorism. Moreover, the families of Posada's many victims deserve their day in court.

And, who knows. If we take the man known as Latin America's Osama bin Laden off our own streets, someone might just help us take America's bin Laden off theirs.

Financial Times FT.com
COMMENT & ANALYSIS
Letters
US must listen to Latin America, not lecture it
Published: September 12 2007

From Ms Sarah Stephens.

Sir, With reference to the article by Nancy Soderberg, "America must tell Fernández to be more responsible" (September 10): is it good policy for the US to be telling a presidential candidate in Argentina (or elsewhere for that matter) what her foreign policy should be weeks before the people of her country have even participated in the election that will determine who serves as their nation's next president?

Former Ambassador Soderberg's advice, both premature and presumptuous, is also wrong, for at least two reasons.

First, her analysis is in error. She divides the region into "responsible" and "irresponsible" camps, between Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro adherents and haters. But Latin America, like life and reality, is far more complicated than that. Ms Soderberg praises President Michelle Bachelet of Chile for pursuing good policy, but elides the fact that her relations with Venezuela and with President Chávez himself are cordial. The fact is that the countries of the region negotiate separate trade arrangements with each other, have agreements and arguments with each other, and pursue their own national interests completely outside the false framework Ms Soderberg has constructed. Argentina will undoubtedly follow its own course, and should.

Second, her advice is ineffective and it has been proven so time and again. US policymakers can shout themselves hoarse telling governments what to do and telling publics who to elect, and we have seen how fruitless this advice can be. Regional governments, especially those with active lefts, cannot afford to be viewed as "lackeys" of Washington, and citizens are largely indifferent to admonitions from the outside, as voters have proved in the last several years in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia and Nicaragua, when they took opposite tacks from those advocated by President Chávez or the US Department of State. In other words, they are acting like democracies, something we should applaud and not discourage.

It is crucial for the US to be involved in this hemisphere, even though, as Canada's former prime minister Joe Clark said this weekend in Montreal, our credentials for doing so are diminished. We cannot revive our influence, or pursue our interests, by following the failed policies of the recent past, as if ordering countries to do things will make them do so. We need to engage and most of all listen. We might not like what we hear, but the long term will be a lot more promising.

Sarah Stephens

Director
Center for Democracy in the Americas,

Washington, DC 20009
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007