Babalublog Interview with Jorge Ponce, June 25, 2008

Jorge Ponce was interviewed on June 25, 2008 , at the Babalu Radio Hour – a radio blog in Miami , Florida -- by George Moneo.

 

You can read the script of the interview below, or you can listen to the 90-minute program at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/babalu.

 

**********************************************************************

 

Tonight we are interviewing Mr. Jorge Ponce, a Cuban-American from Washington , DC .  He recently wrote a letter that was published in the Washington Post where he expressed his disagreement with an op-ed piece written by columnist Eugene Robinson regarding the U.S. policy against Cuba .  

 

You can read Eugene Robinson’s article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002119.html and Jorge’s and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez’ responses at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801671.html.

 

1) In what capacity will you address this topic tonight?

 

I will address this topic as a Cuban-American who left Cuba in 1966, and has never forgotten the roots where he came from.

 

I will address this topic as an American who is anxious that freedom be restored to the Cuban people, who have lived under a totalitarian government for 49 years. 

 

I will address this topic as a citizen of the world who believes that people have a right to elect their own heads of state without fear of reprisal.

 

You see, I believe that we in the United States have a moral responsibility to speak on behalf of those who have no voice and remain powerless in the face of totalitarian forces. 

 

When we do so, we are showing the world what is best about America .  We show them the United States as that “shining city upon a hill.”  We show them an America that is man’s last hope to those who seek freedom and democracy for themselves and future generations. 

 

While I am a federal employee, my views tonight do not reflect the views of my employer. They are my own. 

 

I will not be speaking as a government bureaucrat.  I’ll be speaking in plain English.

 

2) For the benefit of our listeners, Jorge asked us to extend an invitation to Eugene Robinson to appear in tonight’s program – which he has declined. 

 

Jorge, Mr. Robinson indicated that Presidential Candidate Obama was in the lion’s den when he addressed the Cuban-American National Foundation on May 23, 2008 . Thus, do you think that Mr. Robinson declined to appear in this program because he may have thought that it would be like making an appearance in the lion’s den?

 

I hope that Mr. Robinson does not feel that way. It would be unfortunate. 

 

The Cuban-Americans at the recent Cuban-American National Foundation function were well-behaved and listened carefully to Senator Obama’s views on dealing with the Cuban Government if elected to the Presidency.

 

While the majority of Cuban-Americans disagree with Obama’s policy and would not vote for him, they listened politely to him.

 

If Mr. Robinson would have appeared in tonight’s program, I would have argued the issues without resorting to any ad hominem or personal attacks on Mr. Robinson as a person.  This is what democracy is all about.  We would never have such an opportunity in Communist Cuba.    

 

3) Mr. Robinson states that he visited Cuba ten times as a journalist, and, consequently, he is knowledgeable to discuss the need for change with regard to the U.S. policy on Cuba.  How do you feel about his qualifications to speak on this issue?

 

As Dan Rather found out when he visited Cuba , Cuban officials manipulate what they want U.S. dignitaries to see.  I’m sure that these Cuban officials controlled Mr. Robinson’s itinerary when he visited Cuba , and had security personnel bug the telephone in his hotel room and followed him around.  Thus, what he saw and heard were not representative of the aspirations of the Cuban people.

 

Moreover, even if the security measures that I mentioned previously had not taken place, Cubans would not have leveled freely with Mr. Robinson for fear that their actions would be monitored for talking to a U.S. journalist and they would suffer adverse consequences for themselves and their families.  Keep in mind, the Cuban Government controls every aspect of daily life in Cuba – from where you go to school, to where you work, to what you are allowed to read.  

 

Put differently, if you upset Cuban officials by talking to a foreign journalist, the consequences could be as dire as disrupting your plans to pursue a university degree, to terminating your employment.  In a Communist country like Cuba , the Government controls everything.

 

4) Jorge, could you give us a historical update of the U.S. embargo on Cuba?

 

Castro took over the Cuban Government in 1959.  The expropriation of U.S. holdings in Cuba took place almost immediately – which resulted in the U.S. imposing a partial embargo in 1960, and a full embargo in 1961.  In 1977, President Carter dropped both the ban on travel to Cuba and on US citizens spending dollars in Cuba . In 1982, President Reagan  re-established the travel ban, and prohibited U.S. citizens from spending money

in Cuba . In 1992, Cuban Democracy Act (introduced by U.S. Congressman Robert Torricelli from N.J.) and in 1996, the Helms-Burton Act codified the U.S. embargo into law.  These two acts placed the power to make any major decisions on the embargo in the hands of Congress – rather than in the President. In 1998, after Pope John Paul II’s historic visit to Cuba , President Clinton lifted the ban on direct flights from the U.S. to

Cuba and allowed Cuban-American families to send remittances to their families in Cuba .  In 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which allowed the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons.  As a result of this law, the US became in 2007 the largest food supplier of Cuba and its 6th trading partner.

 

Several observations can be made from this historical summary.  First, Cuba brought about the U.S. embargo on itself by expropriating U.S. holdings and not compensating them adequately. Second, political figures from both the Democratic and Republican parties have taken a hard stance on this issue. Third, the closest times that the U.S. Government has been to ending the embargo were in 1977 under President Carter and in 1996 under President Clinton. Cuba failed to take advantage of these opportunities by deploying military advisors to Ethiopia in 1977 and by shooting down in 1996 two private planes registered in the U.S. while flying in international waters. And, lastly, a 2007 AP/Ipsos Poll indicated that 48% of Americans favored continuing the embargo, against 40% who favored ending it.       

 

5) Mr. Robinson characterized the U.S. policy on Cuba for nearly five decades as “incredibly stupid.” He further states that the U.S. trade embargo has accomplished nothing.  Do you agree?

I strongly disagree.

 

Even Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque acknowledged in September 2007 that the U.S. embargo had forced Cuba to spend more than $89B to get goods and services elsewhere. 

 

Cuban government officials want to retain the helm of power in perpetuity.  They view the United States as the only impediment to this goal, and, thus, support terrorist organizations and countries that want to harm the United States .  Let’s not forget that Cuba remains in the U.S. Dept. of State’s list of countries supporting terrorist activities. 

 

As an illustration, Fidel Castro while visiting Iran in May 2001, proudly proclaimed – just four months before 9-11 – that “ Iran and Cuba , in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees.”

 

Thus, the U.S. embargo has kept American safe from terrorist acts.  The money that Cuba has had to spend to get goods and services elsewhere is money that Cuban authorities could have channeled to terrorist activities against the United States .

Measured by this standard, the U.S. embargo has been an overwhelming success.

 

6) What about measuring the success of the U.S. embargo from the Cuban people’s perspective?  Cuban officials blame the U.S. embargo for all the every-day deprivations that they suffer.

 

The majority of Cubans are highly educated.  It would be an insult to think that they would not be able to thoroughly analyze the causes for their own misery.

 

They know that the U.S. embargo is not multilateral.  Although Cuba has traded with many European and Asian countries in the past, the living conditions of Cubans have not improved. 

 

Cubans realize that the U.S. embargo is not the cause of their misery.  Instead, it is the failed economic system with its lack of productivity and incentives that has kept Cubans living in substandard conditions for the last 49 years.

 

7) There are many individuals who think it is hypocritical to maintain the U.S. embargo against Cuba and trade with Communist countries like China and Vietnam.  How do you respond?  

It is the business sector in the U.S. that makes this argument.  While some U.S. businesses would benefit with trading with Cuba , it would not help the U.S. economy in any significant way. 

 

Cuba ’s 11M population does not compare favorably with Vietnam ’s 84M and China ’s 1B consumers.  Moreover, the Chinese and Vietnamese governments have allowed market-driven economies to thrive, while the Cuban authorities have opted for a state-run economy.  You don’t need a business degree to figure out that the profit margin is lower with the state-run economic model. 

 

Cuban-Americans also wield tremendous clout in the political arena.  They have four U.S. representatives and two U.S. senators.  When it comes to taking a hard-line against Communist Cuba, these Cuban-American congressmen are of one mindset.

 

In addition, a large influx of American tourists into Cuba would have an adverse impact in the economies of our friends in the region – Puerto Rico , the Dominican Republic , the Bahamas , Jamaica , and even Florida .

 

8) To follow up on your answer, could you elaborate further as to why you think that lifting the U.S. embargo against Cuba would not help the U.S. economy in any significant way.

 

Considering the relaxation of the travel ban is a two-way affair, it is likely that many Cubans visiting the U.S. would want to stay in U.S.  – thus, complicating a volatile issue in American domestic policy.

 

Considering that Cuban state enterprises pay their workers below minimum-wage salaries, the Cuban Government could dump its products in the U.S. market at very low prices.  Thus, many of the Cuban products would compete unfairly with U.S. products.

 

Access to loans from U.S. banking institutions would ultimately be bankrolled by the U.S. taxpayers.  Cuba ’s large foreign debt, owed to both Western and former Communist countries, would hinder Cuba ’s ability to pay back the U.S. loans in a timely fashion.   

 

9) What about relaxing the travel restrictions and remittances for Cuban-Americans? Do you favor these?

 

No, I do not.

 

Cubans reaching the U.S shores are granted special privileges as a result of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.  Unlike other immigrants, Cubans are granted work permits without the fear of being deported to Cuba .  This concession is the result of Cubans being viewed as “political refugees,” rather than immigrants interested only in a better life.  In other words, the U.S. Government thinks that their lives would be in jeopardy if they were returned to Cuba .

 

Thus, I favor the current policy of travel to Cuba that limits these visits only to immediate family members and have a time restriction as well.  To relax these restrictions would transform the status that Cubans enjoy from “political refugees” to “economic immigrants.”  If they are allowed to go back to Cuba every other day, this would dispel the notion that their lives were in jeopardy.  Thus, they should not be treated any different from immigrants from Mexico or other South American and Caribbean countries.  Nevertheless, I don’t object to granting humanitarian visas to travel Cuba to visit close relatives who are very sick. 

 

As far as remittances, I also favor limiting the amounts allowed to be sent to Cuba .  These remittances should be used only to get the basic necessities, not to get luxury items – otherwise it would disrupt the harmony of Cuban society into those with relatives in the U.S. and those without any.    

 

10) One of the Presidential candidates in the U.S. stated a willingness to meet with Cuban officials without preconditions.  What are your views on this policy?

 

I think it is terribly naïve and I disagree with it. 

 

The embargo and the travel ban should be retained as a negotiating tool to accelerate change in Cuba .  If these tools are given away without any meaningful concessions, what leverage would the U.S. have left to bring about democratic changes to Cuba . 

 

A good start would be for Cuban officials to hold free elections with international monitors and to free all political prisoners.

 

To negotiate without any pre-conditions would send the wrong message to the enemies of the U.S. that a foreign dictator can seize U.S. properties without providing any compensation; introduce nuclear missiles aimed at the U.S.; support terrorist activities and anti-U.S. organizations throughout the world; and, in the end, the U.S. will sing kumbaya with them, forget and forgive everything, and reward them with increased tourism, investments, and economic aid. 

 

I don’t think this policy would be good for the U.S. and taxpayers.

 

11) Now, Eugene Robinson indicates that Raul Castro, since assuming the presidency of Cuba, has made some changes that show that he may be more willing than his brother Fidel to improve the lot of Cuba, and, consequently, the U.S. may be in a position to encourage these and more changes by negotiating with him now.  Your thoughts on this issue?

 

I don’t think that we should reward Raul for becoming Cuba ’s new head of state without holding free elections that were internationally monitored.  To do so would subject the Cuban people to more years of totalitarian rule.  

 

Most of the changes that Raul has made are symbolic, without any substance to them. 

 

In the economic front, allowing Cubans to buy computers, cell phones, and other consumer goods won’t affect the lives of Cubans in a positive way.  At an average salary of $17 a month, the majority of Cubans can’t afford to buy these products.

 

In the human rights front, Cuban officials made a big deal about signing the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights in February 2008.  However, Cuban security personnel arrested a group of Cuban women belonging to the Las Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White) in April 2008 – just two months later -- for participating in a demonstration in support of the freedom of their family members who have received long-prison sentences for their political activities.  For Cuban officials, written agreements are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

 

Considering that there is anecdotal evidence that Raul Castro gave the order to shoot down the pilots from the Brothers to the Rescue organization in international waters, we should refrain from doing business with someone implicated in this incident until he’s had a chance to clear his name. 

 

12) In his letter to the editor to the Washington Post, published together with yours, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez wondered why some express outrage against Sudan (or Darfur) and Burma, and I would add Tibet, but turn a blind eye to the suffering of the Cuban people for the last 49 years.  Your thoughts?  

 

What distinguishes these conflicts from the one in Cuba is that the alleged bad guy in the Cuban conflict is the United States .  There is a lot of resentment and envy in the world community and certain sectors in the U.S. against the policies of the U.S. Government.  Thus, some of these countries blame unfairly the U.S. Government for their own failed economic policies and their corrupt governments.

 

13) The European Union agreed to lift the 5-year-old sanctions against Cuba on June 19, 2008.  Do you agree with their decision?

 

This is one of the few areas where the Cuban-Americans and Fidel Castro agree that this was a bad decision – of course, for different reasons.

 

I disagree with this decision because I think that the European Union should have demanded certain concessions from the Cuban Government before going to the negotiation table.  By not doing so, the European Union lacks leverage to bring about positive change to Cuba .  As an example, the sanctions were lifted on June 19, and just twenty-four hours later, Cuban authorities detained seven human-rights activists in the city of Matanzas for hosting a demonstration to improve the treatment of political prisoners in Cuban jails. 

 

It is interesting that Fidel Castro disagreed with the European Union decision because he objected to the call for improvements in human rights in Cuba .  Castro indicated his disdain for the call to free all political prisoners, to give all Cuban access to the Internet, and to allow EU delegations in Cuba to meet with opposition figures.  Clearly, Fidel has no interest in bettering the lot of the Cuban people. For example, I’ve mentioned before that the average monthly salary for a Cuban  is $17.  On the other hand, Forbes Magazines has repeatedly listed Fidel among the world’s richest people – with a net worth in 2006 of $900M USD.  You can clearly see by this disparity that Fidel lacks the moral capacity to talk about human rights.

 

14) In conclusion, what are your final thoughts?

 

My perpetual concern with the Cuban issue is my concern to better the lot of the average Cubans – who have suffered under one of the worst totalitarian governments for the last 49 years. 

 

I’m not one bit concerned with the members of the Cuban Communist Party, as they are the privileged class in Cuban society.  It is irrelevant whether the U.S. lifts or keeps the embargo.  They will make sure that they remain on top with all their privileges.  

 

I hope that Eugene Robinson and other journalists will lift the smoke screen to what has brought suffering and misery to the Cuban people for 49 years.  As journalists, they are responsible for exposing the truth. 

 

As the leader of the free world, the United States has a moral obligation to facilitate democracy and freedom to the Cuban people.

 

I can’t wait for the day when I can drink a Cuba Libre in a Free Cuba and be able to change the lyrics to the popular song by the Cuban-American salsa musician Willy Chirino from Nuestro Dia Ya Viene Llegando (Freedom Is Just Around the Corner) to our Dia Ya Llego – Cuba ’s Date with Freedom Has Finally Arrived!!

 

Muchas gracias y muy buenas noches.  Thanks and good night.