Posts in terrorism list

Weekend Reading: Terrorism, Papal Visit and The Economist's Special Report on Cuba

Looking back on the past year in which change has finally and visibly come to the island of Cuba, and on the cusp of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Cuba, the second papal visit to the island in 15 years, it seems fitting to highlight for readers a few items that offer crucial, and even detailed perspective on where Cuba has been, is going, and how the United States continues to fumble as if blindfolded on Cuba.  This week's issue of The Economist includes a special 10-page report (online here) that charts how change finally, if haltingly, came to Cuba this year, where it falls short and why, and what Cuba could look like in 2015.  The best thing about this special report is that a Cuba neophyte can pick up this issue and having read the complete article, actually come out reasonably informed about Cuba, its leaders, its people's daily struggles, the political heft and the changing course of Cuban exiles and emigrants in America, and what to make of an embargo that few Americans understand is still firmly in place after fifty years - let alone why.

For a taste of the "Wait, what?" moment that comes with the realization that the Cold War didn't actually end between the United States and Cuba when it ended everywhere else, Brigadier General John Adams (Ret.) and David Jones, writing in The Hill this week, urge the State Department to "get real" on keeping Cuba on its state sponsors of terrorism list. 

"Today, four countries are on the list: Iran, Syria, Sudan and … Cuba. Seriously, Cuba?  Countries not on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list include: Yemen, Lebanon, Pakistan, North Korea (the Department of State removed North Korea from the list in 2008) and Libya (removed from the list in 2006). . . "

Point by point, Adams and Jones poke huge holes in the State Department's case for keeping Cuba on the list , though, they hardly need to make their case when this is what the State Department's evidence looks like:

The 2008 U.S. State Country Report on Terrorism stated that Cuba “no longer actively supports armed struggles in Latin America and other parts of the world.” The same report further states, “The United States has no evidence of terrorist-related money laundering or terrorist financing activities in Cuba.”

The 2009 report stated: “There was no evidence of direct financial support for terrorist organizations by Cuba in 2009.” The 2010 State Department report stated: “The Cuban government and official media publicly condemned acts of terrorism by al-Qa’ida and affiliates.”

So, if Cuba doesn't appear to finance, plot or even support terrorism, surely there is some reason why they're on the list?

Does including Cuba on the State Department's list of terrorism sponsoring nations serve the United States' national interest?

http://www.cuba-junky.com/cuba/ibrahim-ferrer.htm

Lawrence B. Wilkerson and Arturo Lopez-Levy

According to a New York Times story , in his recent visit to Havana, former Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson told Bruno Rodriguez, Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations, that by releasing Alan Gross, Cuba could begin a process of being removed from the state sponsors of terrorism list. Since both Richardson and the State Department have repeatedly declared that they have been working together on this issue, this is practically a confession that Cuba’s inclusion on the state sponsors of terrorism list is a sham.

The list of terrorist sponsoring nations should be a bargaining tool for dealing with, well, countries that engage in or sponsor terrorism. The misuse of an otherwise effective foreign policy tool must give pause to responsible members of Congress and the Washington intelligence community.  First, it focuses efforts and resources in the wrong direction, taking eyes and dollars from where the real threats are. Second, it sends the wrong message to other countries, diminishing the impact of a warning to countries such as Iran and Syria and the groups they sponsor such as Hezbollah and Hamas.  Third, it weakens the capacity of US allies like Israel , who are real targets of terrorist threats, to make a case for the isolation or monitoring of countries such as Iran whose presence on the list is justified.

Bachmann in Overdrive, Reps Threaten Repsol Over Cuba Drilling

How do you know that an Italian newspaper report that Hezbollah is looking to establish a presence in Cuba is bogus?  When Rep. Michelle Bachmann picks up the story and runs away with it.

"There’s reports that have come out that Cuba has been working with another terrorist organization called Hezbollah. And Hezbollah is potentially looking at wanting to be part of missile sites in Iran and, of course, when you’re 90 miles offshore from Florida, you don’t want to entertain the prospect of hosting bases or sites where Hezbollah could have training camps or perhaps have missile sites or weapons sites in Cuba. This would be foolish.

Actually, there has been just one report, in an Italian newspaper, which then got picked up and spread around by a number of conservative U.S. blogs.  I am in no position to evaluate the intelligence collected by that newspaper (and it doesn't offer sources), but, as the Wall Street Journal's blog Washington Wire points out, Cuba's presence on the U.S. terrorism list isn't due to any Hezbollah link - it's largely become a political bargaining chip.  And if you doubt that, just ask Bill Richardson.

While Bachmann frets over that one, a group of her colleagues fire off a threatening letter to Spain's Repsol, warning the company to dump its Cuban deep water exploration plans, you know, if you know what's good for you.  The signers warn that "grave civil and criminal" penalties come with violations of the "comprehensive" Cuba embargo.  But even the embargo isn't so comprehensive as to stop a foreign company from drilling in Cuban waters, so long as there aren't U.S. parts, people or expertise involved.  Which, of course, is exactly what scares so many in the industry about the impending exploration in Cuba. 

Not this group, though.  Nowhere in the letter does the group express any concerns around what impact drilling could have on the environment, particularly in the event of a spill.  But it could certainly "harm [Repsol's] commercial interests with the United States," and it might "run afoul of pending legislation."   I think that was a mistake.  In fact, I'm sure had Ros-Lehtinen and Sires, the leaders of the letter effort, invited her to join them on their letter, Michelle Bachmann could have come up with one heck of a nightmare scenario that would have capped the letter off quite nicely.

Oh, I jest.  Serious industry experts warn us to be prepared to prevent or respond to any disaster before drilling begins.  According to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Director Michael Bromwich, the issue has gotten - as it should - attention at "very high levels of the government."

Wikileaks Dump Includes U.S. Assessment of Cuban Terrorism Threat

Taking a page, literally, from the Cuban Triangle, it's worth beginning this post with this comment from Secretary Clinton:

“There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoings or misdeeds. This is not one of those cases.”

Maybe no one needs to know that our diplomats think Angela Merkel lacks creativity.  But, for those of us who have repeatedly sought information about just what kind of threat the country of Cuba, one of four countries remaining on the State Department's state sponsors of terrorism list, actually poses, we finally have a much sought-after, on-the-record answer: "Very little."

In cabled response to a spring 2009 questionnaire assessing the security environment in Cuba, the U.S. Interests Section assessment on Cuba's terrorist threat includes the following:

--------------------

INDIGENOUS TERRORISM

--------------------



5. (U) ANTI-AMERICAN TERRORIST GROUPS



A. No

B. N/A

C. N/A

D. N/A

E. N/A

F. N/A

G. N/A



6. (U) OTHER INDIGENOUS TERRORIST GROUPS



A. No

B. N/A

C. N/A

D. N/A

Judy Gross Wants Action on Cuba, While Obama Sweetens a Deal for Sudan

Yesterday's Miami Herald featured a plea from Judy Gross, wife of the American USAID subcontractor who has been held in Cuba for 11 months (under investigation and without any formal charges filed yet), to Presidents Obama and Castro to "be different than your predecessors, change the tide of bilateral relations." 

"This is my plea to Presidents Obama and Castro: Be different from your predecessors, change the tide of bilateral relations. I call on President Obama, in whom my husband believes so much, to not forget his pledge of a “new beginning” in relations with Cuba. And I call on President Castro to continue working on improving Cuba’s human rights record. To both, I beg: Do not make Alan’s case an excuse to fall further apart, but rather an example of a new era in U.S.-Cuba relations."
Mrs. Gross's plea marks the family's decision to break from the State Department's ineffective 'don't look at me' posturing. Instead, Mrs. Gross has decided to publicly address the root causes for her husband's detention: namely U.S. intervention in Cuban internal affairs (by contracting people like her husband to enter Cuba on tourist visas and offer sophisticated communications technology  - friends in Cuba tell me he was carrying BGANs - that would raise eyebrows in any country), and the two countries' deeply rooted mistrust for one another. 
 
Your heart goes out to the family.  Whatever they may or may not have understood about the risks of traveling to a foreign country, funded by the mortal enemy of that foreign country, they surely didn't contemplate Alan Gross missing his 40th wedding anniversary this summer and being away from his daughter in her time of greatest need (the Gross' 26 year-old daughter was just diagnosed with breast cancer).  What's worse is that the U.S. government, which could so easily offer a gesture of good will to Cuba in hopes of encouraging the release of Mr. Gross, has done literally the opposite, seemingly oblivious to the central role it plays in the case.
 
I've often wondered whether the Obama administration's weakness on Cuba isn't due to something bigger than Miami.  Afterall, post midterm elections, holding off on new rules to encourage academic and cultural travel to the island not only didn't help Joe Garcia win a seat in Congress, it may have harmed him.  Garcia, who repeatedly told supporters new Cuba travel rules were on their way back in August, was obviously swept away by the same anti-incumbent tide as dozens of other Democratic candidates, but on Cuba, he took a bold (for him) stand, and the administration left him looking out of the loop and unable to influence the White House on a signature issue for him.  So I just don't buy that this weakness on Cuba is all about protecting the Joe Garcias out there.
 
When you take a look at Obama's foreign policy ventures of the past 18 months, most if not all of them (but one) have something in common: a willingness to deal, to engage, to compromise.  There's a willingness to give something up - something that might hurt, that might make the President look less "tough" - in order to get something.  Here's the latest example: