Cuban Protestant Leader: Cuban Religious Freedom

Dr. Reinerio Arce

Seminary Chapel, Matanzas, Cuba

 

Dr. Reinerio Arce, a Presbyterian pastor and President of the Evangelical Theological Seminary of Matanzas, Cuba, recently commented on various issues in Cuba, including religious freedom.

He advised this blogger that the recent report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom accurately described improvements in Cuban church-state relations in 2011, when it stated:

• “Positive developments for the Catholic Church and major registered Protestant denominations, including Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists, continued over the last year. The State Department reports that religious communities were given greater freedom to discuss politically sensitive issues. Sunday masses were held in more prisons throughout the island. Religious denominations continued to report increased opportunities to conduct some humanitarian and charity work, receive contributions from co-religionists outside Cuba, and obtain Bibles and other religious materials. Small, local processions continued to occur in the provinces in 2011. The government granted the Cuban Council of Churches time for periodic broadcasts early Sunday mornings, and Cuba‘s Roman Catholic Cardinal read Christmas and Easter messages on state-run stations. Additionally, there were fewer reports of illegal house churches being fined, confiscated, or evicted.”

• “Relations between the Catholic Church and Cuban government continue to improve, although the government maintains strict oversight of, and restrictions on, church activities. Cardinal Jaime Ortega has been instrumental in negotiating the release of political prisoners and intervening to stop officials from preventing the Ladies in White from attending mass in Havana. March 2012 marks the 400th anniversary of the appearance of the Virgin de Caridad de Cobre (Our Lady of Charity), Cuba‘s patron saint. Pope Benedict XVI will travel to Cuba starting on March 26 to participate in the celebrations, at which time he will be received by Cuban President Rául Castro. Throughout the year, a replica of the Our Lady of Charity statue, La Mambisa, has toured the island, drawing large crowds.”

Arce emphasized the rapprochement between the Cuban government and the Roman Catholic Church that was marked by the recent visit to the island by Pope Benedict XVI. Work was suspended so Cuban people could attend the papal Mass in Havana’s Plaza de Revolucion, and the government granted the Pope’s request to make Good Friday a national holiday. Before this visit, Arce noted, there was nearly a month-long pilgrimage of the statue of the Virgin of Cobre, the patron saint of charity and of Cuba, all over the island and in hospitals, prisons and other public places.

According to Arce, however, the Commission engaged in manipulating half truths and bringing together things that are not related when it talked about some Cuban religious leaders and followers having been arrested and held for short periods of time and reports by some church leaders about increased government surveillance and interference with church activities.

Even more astounding to Arce and to this blogger is the failure and refusal of the Commission to appreciate that the positive developments in Cuba outweighed any negatives and to remove Cuba from its “Watch List of countries where the serious violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by the governments do not meet the CPC [Countries of Particular Concern] threshold, but require close monitoring.” (Cuba has been on this Watch List since 2004.)

Cuba is going through significant economic changes with more opportunities for Cuban private business ventures. Simultaneously, Arce pointed out,”the government has withdrawn from many of the subsidized [industries] to make room for the private businesses. Now, many people are [becoming] unemployed because [government jobs] are going to this private sector. It has been a great challenge in Cuban society–especially for the churches because many [Cubans] do not know how to rearrange their work [to be in the private sector]. Many of them are coming to the church to ask for help, which is a big challenge for all of the churches in Cuba.”

In response to this challenge, the Matanzas seminary and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Center (in Havana) are planning a joint course focusing on business administration and related subjects. The seminary and the MLK Center have agreed this program will not promote small, private businesses, but instead cooperatives. Arce said, “We think it is more within the Christian understanding of economy.”

Arce gave thanks for recent changes in U.S. policies regarding travel to Cuba. Now it is easier for U.S. church groups to obtain U.S. Treasury Department licenses to go to Cuba to be with their Christian brothers and sisters. These are important “bridges between our people; [after] all these years of confrontation between our countries, the churches have maintained a strong relationship between the people.”

Another recent change in U.S. policies was commended by Arce. Many Cuban churches–Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist and Methodist–were once parts of their corresponding U.S. churches, and the Cuban pastors earned U.S. pension benefits. Until recently, however, the U.S. government prevented the U.S. churches from paying the Cubans their earned pensions. Earlier this year the U.S. government ended the freeze, and the pensions will soon be paid. The Cuban pastors have been in a very difficult financial situation caused by the freeze. This blogger has personal experience with this issue because the Cuban pastor of Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church’s partner church in Matanzas, Cuba was one of those who could not receive his pension benefits from the U.S. church. I join Arce in shouting a big “Hallelujah”

Many U.S. and Cuban church members have been involved in people-to-people exchanges in recent years. In the process they have experienced the joy of love and solidarity. The Promised Land of more general friendship and respect and solidarity between our peoples is our goal. Praise the Lord!

/

http://lawg.org/action-center/lawg-blog/69-general/997-dr-reinerio-arce-if-you-go-this-year-you-will-find-another-cuba?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed

 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Decides Guantanamo Bay Detainee’s Case Against U.S. Is Admissible on the Merits

On March 30, 2012, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“IACHR” or “Commission”) decided that a case against the U.S. was admissible for determination on the merits.

The case was brought by Djamel Ameziane, who left his home country of Algeria in the early 1990s to avoid a bloody civil war. Thereafter he lived in Austria and Canada for many years until Canada denied his asylum  application. Fearing deportation to Algeria, he fled to Afghanistan just before the U.S. invasion in October 2001. Like many others, he then went to Pakistan to escape the war. There he was picked up and sold to U.S. forces for a bounty. In early 2002 Ameziane was transferred to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has been held ever since without any charges being filed against him. Documents about his hearings at Guantanamo Bay are available on the web.)

In February 2005 he filed a habeas corpus petition with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. There were some preliminary pre-trial and appellate skirmishes, but the case has been stayed or postponed indefinitely by court order.

Thus being left without an effective remedy in U.S. federal court, Ameziane on August 6, 2008, filed with the IACHR a petition and a request for precautionary measures (akin to a preliminary injunction) against the U.S.

Two weeks later, the Commission issued its Urgent Precautionary Measures that required the U.S. immediately to do the following:1.

1. “[T]ake all measures necessary to ensure that . . . Ameziane is not subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture during the course of interrogations or at any other time, including but not limited to all corporal punishment and punishment that may be prejudicial to [his] physical or mental health;
2. [T]ake all measures necessary to ensure that . . . Ameziane receives prompt and effective medical attention for physical and psychological ailments and that such medical attention is not made contingent upon any condition;
3.  [T]ake all measures necessary to ensure that, prior to any potential transfer or release, . . .    Ameziane is provided an adequate, individualized examination of his circumstances through a fair and transparent process before a competent, independent and impartial decision maker; and
4.  [T]ake all measures necessary to ensure that . . . Ameziane is not transferred or removed to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other mistreatment, and that diplomatic assurances are not being used to circumvent the United States’ non-refoulement obligations.”

In October 2010 the Commission held a hearing in the case. Evidence was provided about Ameziane’s lack of effective remedies in U.S. courts, his continuing need to be protected from forcible transfer to Algeria and his plea for resettlement in a safe third country.

Eighteen months later the Commission issued its previously mentioned decision that the case was admissible for proceedings on the merits. Thereafter Ameziane’s attorneys immediately renewed their request that the IACHR facilitate a dialogue between the U.S. and other countries belonging to the Organization of American States toward the safe resettlement of men such as Ameziane, as indefinite detention at Guantánamo will not end unless the international community offers safe homes for the men who cannot return to their countries of nationality for fear of torture or persecution. The attorneys also asked the U.S. Government to direct the U.S. Department of Defense to certify Ameziane for transfer, or, if necessary, authorize a “national security waiver” of the transfer restrictions for him. (Under the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012, he needs a certification or waiver before he can be released.)

Now we wait to see what happens in this case.

Ameziane’s attorneys are from the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Cuban Religious Freedom According to the U.S. Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba

On October 10, 2003, President George W. Bush created the U.S. Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba and directed it to report with recommendations for a comprehensive program to (i) “Bring about a peaceful, near-term end to the [Cuban] dictatorship;” (ii) “Establish democratic institutions, respect for human rights and the rule of law [in Cuba];” (iii) “Create the core institutions of a free economy [in Cuba];” (iv) “Modernize [Cuban]infrastructure;” and (v) “Meet [Cuban] basic needs in the areas of health, education, housing and human services.”[1]

This Commission issued two reports and has not been heard from in the Obama Administration. Its government website (www.cafc.gov) no longer exists.

Its first report in May 2004, in my opinion, was a U.S. blueprint for taking over Cuba. It said, “Religious organizations, including Catholic and certain authentically independent Protestant denominations, represent the fastest growing and potentially fastest growing alterative to the Cuban state in providing basic services and information to the Cuban people.” (P. 20; emphasis added.) The rest of the report makes clear that the Commission believed that only evangelical Christian groups were authentically independent and should be used by the U.S. to build a free Cuba. According to this report, they had “the trust of the people and the means to organize through an existing social network of communications and distribution channels at all levels of society.”[2]

The report also called for the U.S. to avoid trying to use the Cuban Council of Churches, which the U.S. Commission believed, had been “taken over by the Castro regime in the early 1960s and used as a means to control the Protestant churches.” (P. 64.) However, most of the clergy and laity of churches that belong to the Council, the Commission asserted, were “not sympathizers of Castro and the communists and therefore should not be denied assistance or a role in Cuban religious affairs due to ‘guilt by association.” (P. 64.)

The second Commission report in July 2006 provides more details for how the U.S. wants to see Cuba function.[3] President George W. Bush immediately approved the report and directed his Administration to implement its recommendations.[4]

The Commission’s castigation of the Cuban Council of Churches (CCC), in my opinion, is totally unjustified and particularly outrageous. I note that the most recent reports by the U.S. Department of State and by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom do not attack the Cuban Council in this or any other manner.[5]

The CCC was founded in 1941 and “is a fellowship of churches, ecumenical groups, and other ecumenical organizations which confess Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour, according to the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and seek to respond to their common calling, to the glory of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Today their membership consists of 22 churches, 12 ecumenical groups. 3 observer members and 7 fraternal associates.[6]

The CCC seeks “to give unity to the Christian Churches of Cuba and to help unify Cuban churches with other churches around the world.” It also “encourages dialogue between different movements and institutions as a means for churches to expand their ecumenical vocation of service, thus deepening their responsibilities towards society and all of God’s creation.” Finally CCC “promotes study, dialogue, and cooperation among Christians to increase Christian witness and enhance life in Cuba.” [7]

One of its specific programs is the CCC Committee of Emergency Relief that provides relief and building emergency response infrastructure . . . in times of natural disaster” like the hurricanes that hit the island.[8]

Moreover, I have visited the Havana office of the CCC and met some of its employees. I also know a Cuban pastor and seminary official who has been president of the CCC. Based on this personal experience I believe the Council is a legitimate Christian organization that assists its member churches and congregations in a multitude of ways to conduct their ministries in the Cuban context.

<<<<Here is a photo of the CCC sign outside its office. The other photo shows a banner listing its members and programs that I saw in the office.>>>>>>>

These Commission reports, in my opinion, are absolutely outrageous. They assume that it is entirely appropriate for the U.S. to consider and develop plans for a U.S.-imposed regime change in Cuba. They also assume that it is entirely appropriate for the U.S. to make decisions on who in Cuba (or any other country for that matter) is authentically Christian. And they assume that the U.S. may properly use certain Cuban churches, and not others, to advance U.S. objectives in Cuba. All of these assumptions and the conclusions from these assumptions are, in my opinion, illegal, immoral and unwise. I trust that its disappearance from the public scene is final.

---

[1] Wikipedia, Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, en.wikipedia.org/siki/Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.

[2]  Commission on Assistance to a Free Cuba, Report to the President (May 2004), http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB192.pdf.

[3] Commission on Assistance to a Free Cuba, Report to the President (July 2006), available on Council on Foreign Relations website, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/commission-assistance-free-cuba-report-president/p11093.

[4] White House (President George W. Bush), Fact Sheet: Commission on Assistance to a Free Cuba Report to the President (July 10, 2006), http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060710-1.html.

[5] See Post: U.S. Government’s Opinions on Religious Freedom in Cuba (Jan. 5, 2011).

[6] World Council of Churches, Cuban Council of Churches, www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/regions/Caribbean/cuba/cic.html; [U.S.] National Council of Churches, Background on the Cuban Council of Churches, www.ncccusa.org/news/cuba/cccbackground.html.

[7] Id.; United Church of Christ, Cuban Council of Churches, http://globalministries.org/lac/projects/Cuban-council-of-churches.html. See Comment: U.S. Church Leaders Call for U.S.-Cuba Reconciliation (Dec. 10, 2011)[Comment to Post: President Obama Is Wrong on Cuba (Sept. 29, 2011)].

[8] Id.

U.S. Government’s Opinions on Religious Freedom in Cuba

Annually the U.S. Department of State, pursuant to statutory authorization, releases a report on the status of religious freedom in every country in the world.[1] In addition, the quasi-independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom releases annual reports on the same subject.[2]  The most recent State Department reports grudgingly admit that there have been many improvements in such freedom in Cuba while the Commission takes a more strident and hostile view of the subject.

It should be noted at the outset that these two agencies are not seeking to impose on the rest of the world the U.S. constitutional prohibition of the “establishment of religion” or of “abridging the free exercise [of religion].” [3] Instead the agencies reports rely upon international legal standards for such freedom.[4]

Introduction

The Cuban Revolution’s early hostility to religion and the relaxation of this hostility after the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union have been discussed.[5]

Cuba’s constitution now recognizes the right of its citizens to profess and practice any religious belief. However, Cuba is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the American Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, those treaties are not legally binding upon Cuba. Nor is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; as a resolution of the U.N. General Assembly it does not create legal obligations for any nation state.

The estimated religious makeup of the Cuban population is as follows:

Religious Group	Number	Percentage
Roman Catholic	8,000,000	69.57%
Protestants	600,000	5.22%
Jews	1,500	0.01%
Muslims	1,000	0.01%
Other	2,897,500	25.20%
TOTAL	11,500,000	100.00%

However, only an estimated 320,000 to 400,000 of the Roman Catholics regularly attend Mass, and an estimated 80% of the population has some interactions with Santaria, an African Yoruba religion with Catholicism accents.

State Department Reports

Under the authorizing statute, the State Department Under the authorizing statute, the Commission is required to designate as “countries of particular concern” (CPC) those that have engaged in or tolerated “particularly severe” violations of religious freedom. It has so designated eight countries. Cuba is not one of them.[6]

The most recent State Department reports on Cuba start with the statement that “in law and in practice, the [Cuban] government places restrictions on freedom of religion.” The balance of the reports, however, talk about the following positive aspects of this freedom in Cuba:

• “Most religious groups reported improvements in religious freedom.”
• They report “increased ability to cultivate new members, hold religious activities, and conduct charitable and community service projects.”
• They report “fewer restrictions on politically sensitive expression, importation of religious materials, and travel.” Indeed, the majority of religious groups said there was “continued improvement in their ability to import religious materials, receive donations from overseas, and travel abroad to attend conferences and religious events,” and it was “easier to bring in foreign religious workers, access the Internet, and restore houses of worship.”
• They also report greater ability “to obtain government permission to maintain and repair existing places of worship and other buildings.”
• “There were no reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.”
• The Cuban government and  the Roman Catholic Cardinal of Cuba held discussions that led to less government harassment of a group of female relatives of political prisoners (Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White)).
• Although unrecognized religious groups are technically illegal, the government rarely interfered with them.
• Although unregistered “house churches” are technically illegal, the vast majority of religious leaders reported that such churches operated without interference.
• “There were no reports of persons imprisoned or detained for specifically religious reasons.”
• “There were no reports of forced religious conversion.”
• Although there is no legal provision for conscientious objections to military service, in practice the government allows alternative civilian public service.

The Cuban restrictions on religious freedom, according to these reports, in my opinion, are less significant and are qualified by the above recognized positive developments. It has been difficult to obtain permission to construct new church buildings. Some unrecognized churches reported government harassment. The process of obtaining permission for “house churches” was difficult. All religious groups are required to disclose certain financial information and affiliation with foreign organizations, and their records are subject to inspection. The government tightly regulates the publication of all printed materials, including religious materials.

Leaders of an association of nondenominational churches (Apostolic Reformation) reported harassment and detention, and one of the leaders, Pastor Omar Gude Perez, was convicted in 2009 of illicit electronic activity and falsification of documents. In early 2010 the conviction was affirmed.

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

Under the authorizing statute, the Commission is required to designate as “countries of particular concern” (CPC) those that have engaged in or tolerated “particularly severe” violations of religious freedom. In its latest report 14 countries are so designated. Cuba is not one of them; the eight so designated by the State Department plus six others.[7]

But Cuba is one of 11 countries on the Commission’s “Watch List of countries where the serious violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by the governments do not meet the CPC threshold, but require close monitoring.” According to the Commission, the “Watch List provides advance warning of negative trends that could develop into severe violations of religious freedom, thereby providing policymakers with the opportunity to engage early and increasing the likelihood of preventing or diminishing the violations.” (Cuba has been on this Watch List since 2004.)[8]

The Commission recognizes many of the same improvements in Cuban religious freedom as the State Department. The Commission also notes that Raul and Fidel Castro have taken steps to reach out to its small Jewish community with Raul celebrating Hanukkah in 2010 while Fidel criticized Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust.

This report focuses on the Cuban government’s harassment of the Apostolic Reformation, including the conviction and imprisonment of one of its leaders, as was noted in the State Department’s report too. The Commission also discussed the charges made against an evangelical Cuban pastor.

The Commission mentions the Cuban government’s requirement for registration of churches and house churches and its “failure to give permission to build new houses of worship, repair or restore existing ones, or access construction materials; denial of access to state media; denial of exit visas for Cubans; state monopoly on printing presses for religious material; censorship of such materials; prohibition of private religious schools; limits on entry of foreign religious workers; denial of Internet access; denial of religious materials to prisoners; denial of permission to hold religious events outside their buildings; and unofficial exclusion of overtly religious propel from certain employment. (The State Department in contrast talks about many of these restrictions being relaxed.)

The Commission then recommends that the U.S. press the Cuban government to take 10 specific actions to improve religious freedom “prior to [the U.S.'] considering resuming full diplomatic relations” with Cuba. Other recommendations were: (i) U.S. funding of initiatives to advance Cuban religious freedom; (ii) increasing the number of U.S. visas for Cuban religious leaders; (iii) encouraging Radio Marti and Radio Marti to report on religious freedom issues;[9] (iv) eliminating U.S. barriers to Internet access by Cuban religious freedom and human rights activists; and (v) awarding U.S. funds to counter Cuban censorship.

Conclusion

The State Department’s more balanced reports on Cuban religious freedom, in my opinion, are better grounded in reality than the Commission’s. While I believe the U.S. should encourage and promote religious freedom around the world, including Cuba, the recommendations by the Commission are unjustified and counterproductive and evidence the same bias against Cuba that we see in other aspects of U.S. policy towards Cuba.[10]

---

[1]  U.S. Dep’t of State, 2010 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom (Nov. 17, 2010), www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/index.htm; U.S.Dep’t of State, July-December, 2010 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom (Sept. 13, 2011), www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010_5/index.htm.

[2] U.S. Comm’n on Int’l Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2011 (May 2011), www.uscirf.gov/images/book%20with%20cover%20for%20web.pdf. The Commission, which was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 as an entity separate and distinct from the State Department, is an independent U.S. government body that monitors religious freedom worldwide and makes policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress.  On December 16, 2011, the Commission’s life was extended by Congress through 2018 after a series of brief extensions had kept it in existence after its previous authorization expired in September 2011. (Bauman, US religious freedom commission reauthorized at last minute, www.catholicnewsagency.com (Dec. 17, 2011).)

[3]  U.S. Const., First Amend.

[4] See Post: International Law Regarding Freedom of Religion (Jan. 1, 2012).

[5] See Post: The Cuban Revolution and Religion (Dec. 30, 2011).

[6] The eight CPC countries are Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Ubekistan.

[7]  The other six CPC countries, according to the Commission are Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.

[8]  The other 10 countries on the Commission’s Watch List are Afghanistan, Belarus, India, Indonesia, Laos,Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey and Venezuela.

[9] Radio y Televisión Martí is a radio and television broadcaster based in Miami, Florida, financed by the U.S. government which transmits Spanish radio and television broadcasts to Cuba.

[10] See Post:The Ridiculous U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” (May 20, 2011); Post: U.S. Repeats Its Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” (Aug. 21, 2011).

The Cuban Revolution and Religion

Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church since 2002 has had a partnership with a Presbyterian-Reformed church in Matanzas, Cuba,  a city of approximately 150,000 on the north shore of the island about  56 miles east of Havana.[1]

The existence of this partnership and my going on three Westminster mission trips to Cuba–November 2002, January 2004 and October/November 2007–have sparked an interest in learning more about Cuba and the history and politics of U.S.-Cuban relations. I already have shared some of the conclusions I have reached as a result of this personal involvement with Cuba and Cubans.[2] Now I would like to share some reflections on religious life in Cuba after the Cuban Revolution of 1959.

First, I give thanks to God and Jesus for the miracle of the survival of the Christian churches in Cuba. Over the 52 years of the Cuban Revolution, these churches indeed have been engaged in a struggle for survival.

Many of their fellow Christians, including pastors, starting in 1959, fled the island to escape the negative aspects of the Cuban Revolution. The Cuban government expelled many foreign-born Roman Catholic priests who were seen as supporters of the pre-Revolution Batista regime and as opponents of the Revolution. The Cuban government since 1959 has controlled and severely restricted any construction of church property, which I see as a policy to control use of limited resources. The Cuban government in 1965-67 sent many Christians and others regarded as undesirable to forced labor camps in the Sierra Mastre Mountains at the eastern end of the island.

The Cuban government in 1961 closed and prohibited Christian schools and confiscated their property. This included the well-known Presbyterian Escuela la Progressiva in the city of Cardenas, now known as the home-town of Elian Gonzalez.

In the early 1960’s the Communist Party of Cuba banned Christians and other religious citizens from party membership, which was a requirement for many jobs controlled by the state. On my second visit to Cuba, I met a man who said he had been in seminary with the pastor of our partner church, but had left the church and only had returned after he had retired as a history teacher. (That ban lasted until 1991 or after the collapse of the Soviet Union.)

The Cuban government in 1976 amended the country’s constitution to make scientific materialism or atheism the official or established philosophy or religion. (That provision was deleted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1992.)

The Cuban government still permits very limited church access to radio and TV. The Cuban government still controls and limits the publishing of religious materials. In fact, I believe, the only authorized such publisher on the island is our partner church. They print church bulletins and newsletters and other religious materials for most of the Protestant churches on the island.

The Cuban government plasters the island with billboards proclaiming the virtues of the Revolution and the sayings of Fidel, Che Guevara and Jose Marti, the 19^th century Cuban poet and patriot. In contrast, the Cuban churches apparently are not permitted to have any billboards with competing messages of the good life.

Just compare our partner church with the next-door provincial headquarters of the Communist Party of Cuba. The church has virtually no identifying sign or message. The Party (CCP) has a bright red sign in its parking lot, and its building used to have a billboard with a Fidel quotation on top.

The Revolutionary socialist or communist philosophy and polices since 1959 have resulted in a leveling down of the society economically. Thus, there has been no prosperous middle class such as we have in the U.S., to provide financial and other support to the Cuban churches.

It, therefore, was not surprising for me to hear an active member of our partner Cuban church say that earlier she was not brave enough to be a Christian.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Center, Havana

In 2007 we visited Havana’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Center which is affiliated with the adjacent Baptist Church. The church’s pastor, Raul Suarez, said that in 1984 he learned that Jesse Jackson, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President that year, was coming to Cuba. Jackson said that Fidel Castro had invited him to discuss the status of 22 U.S. citizens then being held by the Cuban government. Jackson said that he also wanted an invitation from a Cuban church so that he could participate in a religious service in Cuba. Jackson asked Suarez, then Executive Secretary of the Cuban Council of Churches and Director of International Relations of the Cuban Baptist Church, if that would be possible. Jackson also gave Suarez a letter to provide to Castro on this issue. Castro responded that it would not be a problem even though atheism was the established “religion” in the Cuban constitution at the time.

Jackson made his trip to Cuba in June 1984 and gave a speech to 4,000 students at the University of Havana with Castro in attendance. Afterwards the two of them and their aides walked a few blocks to the nearby Methodist Church where Jackson would be preaching. As they neared the church, Suarez heard a Castro aide say to Fidel, “Take off your hat, you are close to a church.” Fidel took off his hat. Suarez was surprised by this comment and Fidel’s response. Suarez told Fidel that the people in the Plaza de Revolution (supporters of the Revolution) and the people in the church were one and welcomed Fidel to the church. Fidel said, do not ask me to preach.

There were 700 to 800 people in the church that day, including 35 church leaders and the Roman Catholic Archbishop (now Cardinal). When Castro entered the church, the choir extemporaneously cried, “Fidel, Fidel, Fidel.” Castro did make a short speech from the pulpit with a cross behind him. (Another Cuban pastor who was present told me that Castro obviously felt uncomfortable with the Bible on the lectern and awkwardly put his hands behind his back.) Castro praised Dr. King and Jackson and said there was a need for more exchanges between the churches and the government.

Later that same day Suarez was invited to a dinner with Fidel and Jackson. This was the first time he had ever shaken Fidel’s hand, and Fidel asked him to come to the airport the next day to say goodbye to Jackson.

Soon thereafter Suarez asked for a meeting of religious leaders with Fidel and submitted to Fidel a document of concern about the official policy of atheism’s limiting the space for religion. This resulted in a four-hour meeting between Fidel and about 14 Protestant leaders and the College of the Roman Catholic Bishops. Fidel expressed surprise at the Protestant ecumenicism, saying that when he was a boy in Jesuit schools, Roman Catholics disparaged Protestants. At the end of the meeting Castro made a covenant with these leaders: the churches will made an effort to understand “us” while Fidel and the Cuban Communist Party will make an effort to understand the churches. This agreement, said Fidel, should be easier for the churches than for the party.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union there have been signs of a more tolerant Cuban policy toward the churches, some of which have already been mentioned: elimination of scientific materialism as the established “religion” in Cuba and of the Communist Party’s ban on religious people becoming members of the Party.

Pope John Paul II & Fidel

Mass in Plaza de Revolucion

In addition, Pope John Paul II visited Cuba in 1998 and celebrated mass before a huge crowd in Plaza de Revolucion (the site of many Revolutionary celebrations and long speeches by Fidel). The next year Cuban Protestants had a similar gathering in that Plaza.

Recently Pope Benedict XVI announced his planned visit to Cuba in 2012, and the Cuban government said that it would release many political prisoner

Fidel & Patriarch @ Greek Orthodox Cathedral

Greek Orthodox Cathedral,Havana

Patriarch & Fidel mosaic @ Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Havana

In 2004, during my second visit to Cuba, Patriarch Bartholomew of the Greek Orthodox Church was in Havana for the dedication of the new Greek Orthodox Cathedral that was paid for by the Cuban government.

These developments, in my opinion, were real politik moves by the Cuban government to gain international allies to help combat el Gringos de Norte.

In short, Revolutionary Cuba has made life very difficult for churches and religious people, especially from 1959 through 1989. On the other hand, there were no assassinations or disappearances of priests or other religious people who were opposed to the regime like what happened in El Salvador.

Pursuant to statutory authorization the U.S. government and a quasi-independent U.S. commission have been releasing annual reports on religious freedom in the world that have been very critical of such freedom in Cuba. These reports will be discussed in a subsequent post.

This then is the historical context in which Westminster initiated its partnership with the church in Matanzas in 2002, a relationship that has grown and become more meaningful for the people of both churches. A future post will discuss our Cuban partnership.

---

[1] See Post: Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church (April 6, 2011).

[2]  In the “Tag Cloud” at the top right of my blog, click on “Cuba” to look at the posts about Cuba.

U.N. General Assembly Again Condemns U.S. Embargo of Cuba

On October 25, 2011, the United Nations General Assembly debated a resolution: “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” It passed, 186 to 2 with 3 abstentions. Only Israel joined the U.S. in opposition while three small  Pacific island nations – Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia – abstained.[1]

During the debate, the Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said that the sanctions have caused direct economic damages of close to $1 trillion to the Cuban people over nearly half a century. In response, the U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Ronald D. Godard, said the embargo is a bilateral issue and “not appropriately a concern of this assembly.” Godard added that the sanctions represent “just one aspect of U.S. policy toward Cuba, whose overarching goal is to encourage a more open environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Before this year’s vote the U.N. Secretary-General, pursuant to a provision of last year’s resolution on the subject, invited U.N. members and agencies to comment on the embargo for a report by the Secretary-General. [2] Of the 193 U.N. Members, 142 (of 73.6%) responded, all criticizing the embargo as did the 20 U.N. agencies that replied; the U.S. and Israel did not comment. [3] Here are some of the strongest statements on the subject:

• Australia. “Since 1996, the Government of Australia has consistently supported General Assembly resolutions calling for an end to the trade embargo against Cuba. Australia has no trade or economic legislation or measures which restricts or discourages trade or investment to or from Cuba.”
• Brazil. “The Brazilian Government has consistently opposed the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed against Cuba. Accordingly, Brazil has also continued to foster and pursue a growing economic relationship with Cuba. . . . The maintenance of the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba is inconsistent with the dynamic regional policy that has recently been marked by the return of Cuba to dialogue and cooperation forums of the Americas.”
• China. “This [embargo] is not only a serious violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of relevant United Nations resolutions, but also a source of immense economic and financial losses for Cuba. It is an impediment to efforts by the Cuban people to eradicate poverty, to promote their economic and social development and to attain the Millennium Development Goals, it impairs the Cuban people’s right to survival and development, and it adversely affects normal economic, commercial and financial relations between Cuba and other countries.”
• European Union. “…the European Union and its member States have been clearly expressing their opposition to the extraterritorial extension of the United States embargo, such as that contained in the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996.”
• Holy See. “The Holy See has never drawn up or applied economic, commercial or financial laws or measures against Cuba.”
• Japan. “Japan shares the concern, arising from the . . . (the Helms-Burton Act) and the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, that, if application of such legislation causes undue hardship in relation to the economic activities of the enterprises or nationals of a third party, the legislation is likely to run counter to international law regarding the extraterritorial application of domestic laws.”
• Mexico. “Mexico emphasizes that [the embargo] has serious humanitarian consequences that are contrary to international law and, moreover, signify the abandonment of diplomacy and dialogue as the appropriate ways of settling disputes between States. . . . The Government of Mexico has also consistently opposed Cuba’s economic and political-diplomatic isolation. It has therefore firmly supported Cuba’s inclusion in all regional integration machinery in order to promote economic and commercial exchange, cooperation and development.”

This is the twentieth straight year the General Assembly overwhelmingly has adopted a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo. In 2010, for example, a resolution that called upon the U.S. to repeal the embargo was approved by 187-2, again with only Israel joining the U.S. in opposition and the same three Pacific island nations abstaining.

Here are some of the reasons why the U.S. should end the embargo:

1. The embargo undermines U.S. foreign policy interests. It undermines the empowerment of Cuban citizens, harming them economically and depriving them of choices that could emerge from greater U.S. engagement with Cuba. (Steve Clemons, Washington Editor-at-Large, The Atlantic and Senior Fellow & Founder, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation.)
2. The embargo hurts U.S. national security interests . It prevents normal trade and travel between our two countries. It prevents cooperation with Cuba on common security issues such as crime and terrorism. It hurts U.S. standing throughout the world by highlighting our aggression against a neighboring country that poses no threat. (John Adams, Brigadier General US Army (Retired).)
3. The Cuba embargo runs counter to our experiences with China and Viet Nam. Both countries have Communist systems, and we fought a war with Viet Nam. Yet we trade with both. (John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture under President Ronald Reagan and officer with Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz PC0.)
4. The embargo isolates the U.S. government and cuts off contact between Cubans and Americans . The embargo isolates and weakens U.S. policy makers and U.S. policies at a time of increasing integration between Latin America and the Caribbean and the global south. U.S. citizens are denied ready access to highly praised Cuban achievements in the arts and culture, education, medical and technological advances, and deprived of sustained engagements with Cuban citizens and the Cuban government to share our national virtues. (James Early,Trustee, Institute for Policy Studies, and Director of Cultural Heritage Policy, Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage.)
5. The embargo undermines the image of the United States throughout the world. The embargo is senseless and irredeemable. It is the act of a bully, based on pique. It is an abysmal moral and political failure, diminishing not Cuba but the U.S. in world opinion and respect. It has achieved the opposite of what it has sought, hurting both the Cuban people as well as U.S. interests. The embargo is opposed by virtually the entire world as well as large domestic majorities, even Cuban exiles and dissidents; yet, the U.S. government persists with its petty punitive policy, not out of reasoned principle but for internal political posturing. (Rubén G. Rumbaut, ENCASA/US-CUBA, University of California, Irvine.)
6. The embargo imposes great suffering on Cubans . The embargo continues to inflict gratuitous and pointless suffering on the Cuban people. Children dying from cancer are denied access to potentially life-saving drugs, heart patients cannot get U.S. manufactured pace-makers, and Cuba’s cutting-edge biotechnology institutes that provide important drugs at an affordable price to the rest of the world are denied the U.S. substrates they need. (Peter Bourne, Chairman of the Board, Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC).)
7. The embargo hobbles our ability to protect the environment . Oil drilling in Cuban waters creates an unprecedented urgency to rethink U.S. policy toward Cuba. An oil spill in Cuba could be disastrous to shorelines, marine life, coastal communities and livelihoods in both countries. The U.S. should eliminate political and legal obstacles that hinder its ability to share expertise if an emergency occurs in shared waters. The Obama Administration has taken some positive steps to promote scientific exchange and dialogue on environmental protection with Cuba. Environmental diplomacy-done right and carried out in good faith-can lay a foundation for real and lasting improvement in Cuba-U.S. relations. (Daniel Whittle, Senior Attorney and Cuba Program Director, Environmental Defense Fund.)
8. The embargo is not about principle; it’s about politics . The embargo is an international embarrassment to a country that continues to claim leadership in the realm of human rights. An unnecessary and sickening relic of the Cold War, the embargo has become a political football proving that elections – and electoral votes – mean more to American politicians than fairness, justice, the human needs of the Cuban people or the lives, health and education of Cuban children. (Mike Farrell, Actor and human rights advocate.)
9. Ending the embargo would be doing the right thing. It is time for President Obama and Congress to do the right thing, cast off the failed embargo of Cuba, and embrace a policy of engagement that will provide economic opportunities for U.S. farmers and businesses as well the workers they employ. Doing the right thing will improve economic conditions in both the U.S. and Cuba and will also over time contribute to greater social stability in the Caribbean region. (Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council.)
10. 10.   Ending the embargo is long overdue . Lifting the U.S. embargo against Cuba is long overdue. (Katrin Hansing, Associate Professor of Black and Hispanic Studies at Baruch College (CUNY).)

---

[1] Assoc. Press, UN Condemns US Embargo of Cuba–Again, N.Y. Times (Oct. 25, 2011); Latin America Working Group, UN Cuba Vote–Happy 20th Anniversary (Oct. 25, 2011); CubaCentral Newsblast (Oct. 21, 2011). See also Post: The Ridiculous U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” (May 20, 2011); Post: U.S. Repeats Its Ridiculous Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” (Aug. 21, 2011); Post: The U.S. Should Pursue Reconciliation with Cuba (May 21, 2011); Post: Commutation and Release of Convicted “Spies” (Sept. 24, 2011); Post: Roots for Hope for U.S.-Cuba Relations (Sept. 27, 2011); Comment: Cuban Foreign Minister Attacks U.S. Policies (Sept. 28, 2011); Post: President Obama Is Wrong on Cuba (Sept. 29, 2011); Comment: Obama and Romney Out of Touch on Cuba Oct. 15, 2011); Post: U.S. and Cuba Discuss Exchange of Prisoners (Oct. 14, 2011); Comment: Cuban-Americans in Congress Criticize U.S. Willingness To Discuss Issues with Cuba (Oct. 15, 2011).

[2] U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 65/6 (Nov. 23, 2010).

[3] Report of U.N. Secretary-General, Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba (Aug. 16, 2011).

U.S. and Cuba Discuss Exchange of Prisoners

One of the so-called Cuban Five recently completed his sentence in U.S. prison and is now on probation in the U.S. and not permitted by the court to return to Cuba.[1]

We now learn that the U.S. offered to allow this individual with dual U.S.-Cuban citizenship to return to Cuba in exchange for his renouncing his U.S. citizenship and Cuba’s release of imprisoned U.S. citizen, Alan Gross. Another part of the offer was U.S. stated willingness after the exchange of these two individuals  to discuss certain other issues between the two countries, including removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism;[2] reducing spending on Cuban democracy promotion programs like the one that led to the U.S.’ hiring of Gross; authorizing U.S. companies to help Cuba clean up oil spills from Cuba’s planned offshore drilling; improving postal exchanges; ending a program that makes it easier for Cuban medical personnel to move to the U.S.; and licensing the French company Pernod Ricard to sell Havana Club rum in the United States.[3]

This is a positive development.[4]

Cuba, however, rejected this offer on the ground that the Cuban now on probation had already served his prison sentence. Instead Cuba is reported to have counter-offered to release Gross in exchange for the U.S. pardoning some or all of the Cuban Five.[5]

This too is a positive development in keeping open the possibility of further negotiations between the two countries on the many accumulated issues burdening their relationship.

However, if the reports are correct that Cuba was seeking “pardons,” then it was asking for something that is not legally or politically possible. Federal pardons are theoretically available only to federal felons who have completed their sentences and are rarely granted as they involve collateral benefits under U.S. law. As the other four Cubans have not completed their sentences, they are not eligible for pardons. A commutation of sentence, on the other hand, reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed.The other four Cubans are eligible for clemency or commutations. [6]

I hope the U.S. and Cuba continue these preliminary discussions and reach an agreement on commuting the sentences of the Cuban Five and Alan Gross and allowing all of them to return to their home countries.

---

[1] See Post: Commutation and Release of Convicted “Spies” (Sept. 24, 2011); Post: Roots of Hope for U.S.-Cuba Relations (Sept. 27, 2011); Comment: Cuban Foreign Minister Attacks U.S. Policies (Sept. 28, 2011)(Comment to prior Post); Post: President Obama Is Wrong on Cuba (Sept. 29, 2011).

[2]  See Post: The Ridiculous U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”  (May 20, 2011); Post: U.S. Repeats Its Ridiculous Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”  (Aug. 21, 2011).

[3] Assoc. Press, AP Sources–US Offered Cuba Swap for American, N.Y. Times (Oct. 14, 2011).

[4] See Post: The U.S. Should Pursue Reconciliation with Cuba (May 21, 2011).

[5]  See n.3.

[6]  U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney, http://www.justice.gov/pardon/index.html.

President Obama Is Wrong on Cuba

Yesterday President Obama said that the U.S. was prepared to change U.S. policies toward Cuba, including the U.S. embargo, if Cuba takes steps to open up to democracy and human rights and releases political prisoners.[1]

This U.S. position is wrong.[2]

First, the U.S. does not have any right to impose such pre-conditions on the mere willingness to begin discussions on addressing the many differences that have arisen between the two countries over the last half century. Moreover, in my opinion, it is contrary to the U.S. national interest to do so.

Second, the minor premise of this U.S. position is erroneous. Cuba in fact already is taking steps to  make these changes.

Cuba, pursuant to an agreement with the Roman Catholic Church, has released many political prisoners over the last couple of years. Cuba also is taking steps to open up its economy to more private enterprise. These changes are not happening as fast as many people hope for, but as President Obama has discovered, change is not easy, it takes a lot of work.

Third, Cuba recently reiterated its desire and interest in having normal relations with the U.S. and mentioned specific problems on which the two countries should be able to work together fairly quickly. All the U.S. needs to do is to reciprocate with a stated willingness to start the necessary negotiations.[3]

I have been, and continue to be, a strong supporter of President Obama. But his recent statements about our relations with Cuba are wrong. The U.S. needs to change its policies and approach toward Cuba.

---

[1] Reuters, Cuba Must Reform Before U.S. Eases Stance: Obama, N. Y. Times (Sept. 29, 2011); White House Blog, What you Missed: President Obama’s Open for Questions Roundtable (Sept. 28, 2011), http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/28/what-you-missed-president-obamas-open-questions-roundtable.

[2] See Post: The Ridiculous U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor” of Terrorism” (May 20, 2011); Post: U.S. Repeats Its Ridiculous Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor” of Terrorism” (Aug. 21, 2011); Post: The U.S. Should Pursue Reconciliation with Cuba (May 21, 2011); Post: Commutation and Release of Convicted “Spies”

(Sept. 24, 2011).

[3] Associated Press, Cuba Seeks Normalization With US, N.Y. Times (Sept. 26, 2011); Archibold, Cuban Minister Leaves a Door Open to American’s Release, N.Y. Times (Sept. 26, 2011); Post: Roots of Hope for U.S.-Cuba Relations (Sept. 27, 2011).

 

Roots of Hope for U.S.-Cuba Relations

Desires for normal relations between the U.S. and Cuba often seem hopeless.[1]

Today’s news offers two new reasons for hope for such a day.

Roots of Hope or Raices de Esperanza is a Miami-based non-profit network of more than 3,000 students and young professionals across the U.S. and abroad focused on empowering Cuban youth. They seek to inspire young people to care about Cuba, think outside the box and proactively support our young counterparts on the island through innovative means. They hope to make a positive impact on Cuba through academic and cultural initiatives guided by three basic principles: amor, amistad y esperanza (love, friendship and hope).[2]

The group’s current projects are (a) to provide young people in Cuba with refurbished cellular phones; (b) to publish the Ex(CHANGE) Guide that outlines different ways young people outside of Cuba can connect with young people on the island; and (c) to host an annual national youth leadership conference of diverse Cuban, Cuban-American and Cuba-loving young leaders.[3]

The other news providing hope were remarks yesterday in New York City by Cuba’s Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, to the U.N. General Assembly and to the editors and reporters of the New York Times.[4]

Rodriguez reiterated his government’s willingness and interest in moving towards normalization of relations with the U.S. One way to make progress on this overall goal was to focus on problems where, he thought, both countries had an interest in negotiating cooperation agreements. These included drug-trafficking, terrorism, human smuggling, preventing and responding to natural disasters and protecting the environment.[5]

The Foreign Minister said the U.S.’ continued imprisonment of five Cubans (known as “The Cuban Five” in the U.S. and “The Miami Five” in Cuba) was “inhumane” and called for the U.S. to release them and allow them to return to Cuba.[6]

Cuba’s imprisonment of U.S. citizen Alan Gross, the Foreign Minister said, was not linked to The Cuban Five, but he hinted otherwise. He said, “I do not see any way in which we can move on towards a solution of the Mr. Gross case but from a humanitarian point of view and on the basis of reciprocity.”[7]

The time is ripe, President Obama. Commute the sentences of the Cuban Five and allow them to return to their homes on the island. Cuba has virtually committed to respond with its release of Alan Gross.

---

[1] See Post: The Ridiculous U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor” of Terrorism” (May 20, 2011); Post: U.S. Repeats Its Ridiculous Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor” of Terrorism” (Aug. 21, 2011); Post: The U.S. Should Pursue Reconciliation with Cuba (May 21, 2011); Post: Commutation and Release of Convicted “Spies”

(Sept, 24, 2011).

[2] Associated Press, Nonprofit Plants Seed for Future US-Cuba Relations, N.Y. Times (Sept. 26, 2011); Roots of Hope/Raices de Esperanza, http://www.raicesdeesperanza.org.

[3] Id.

[4]  Associated Press, Cuba Seeks Normalization With US, N.Y. Times (Sept. 26, 2011); Archibold, Cuban Minister Leaves a Door Open to American’s Release, N.Y. Times (Sept. 26, 2011).

[5] Id.

[6] Id.; Post: Commutation and Release of Convicted “Spies” (Sept, 24, 2011).

[7] See n.4.

Commutation and Release of Convicted “Spies”

The U.S. has been involved in three disputes over individuals convicted and imprisoned for alleged spying.

Shane Bauer & Joshua Fattal

Alan Gross

One dispute has been with Iran over its conviction and imprisonment of two American hikers (Shane Bauer and Joshua Fattal) for alleged spying. This week Iran unilaterally released the two men, a decision prompted, in part, by its desire to improve its international image at the start of the U.N. General Assembly meeting.[1]

The second dispute is with Cuba over its conviction and imprisonment of an American, Alan Gross, who apparently brought some electronic equipment to Cuba for Jewish people on the island. Former Governor Bill Richardson recently was unsuccessful in his trip to Cuba to gain Gross’ release. Late this week, however, there were hints that Cuba might release him for humanitarian reasons. Cuba should follow the lead of Iran and commute the sentence to time served and release him to return to his family in the U.S.[2]

The last dispute is also with Cuba over the U.S. conviction and imprisonment of five Cubans for their efforts to gain information in the U.S. over Cuban exile groups’ flights to and over Cuba. The so called “Cuban Five” were arrested in September 1998 and subsequently convicted of various crimes. They have been in U.S. jails and prisons for the last 13 years. Yet during this long period the U.S. cruelly has granted very few visas to the Cuban spouses of four of them to visit them in U.S. prisons. One of the “Cuban Five” will complete his sentence this October, and the trial judge recently imposed three years of supervised release in the U.S. only, thereby rejecting his plea to be able to return to his family in Cuba. The U.S. should act in a humanitarian manner and commute the sentences of all five to time served and allow them to return to their families in Cuba.[3]

 

In Cuba the five are known as the “Miami Five” and are regarded as Cuban heroes for helping to protect Cuba from terroristic attacks by Cuban exile groups in the U.S. You see posters with their photographs or portraits all over the island. Cuba has mounted an international “Free the Cuban Five” campaign.

 

The time is way past due for the U.S. to have normal diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba.[4]

---

[1] E.g., Goodman & Cowell, American Hikers Leave Iran After Prison Release, N.Y. Times (Sept. 21, 2011).

[2] E.g., Archibold, Cuban Minister Leaves a Door Open to American’s Release, N.Y. Times (Sept. 23, 2011).

[3]  E.g., Assoc. Press, Spy Wants Return to Cuba After Prison, U.S. Objects, N.Y. Times (Sept. 12, 2011); Cave, Americans and Cubans Still Mired in Distrust, N.Y. Times (Sept. 15, 2011); Cuban Embassy in Netherlands, Denied by Judge Lenard, Rene’s motion on his return to Cuba (Sept. 16, 2011), http://www.cubadiplomatica.cu/EN.

[4] See Post: The Ridiculous U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor” of Terrorism” (May 20, 2011); Post: U.S. Repeats Its Ridiculous Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor” of Terrorism” (Aug. 21, 2011); Post: The U.S. Should Pursue Reconciliation with Cuba (May 21, 2011).