For thousands of activists in both the developed world and the third world, Cuba has been both an inspiration and an amazing example of a country that has actually withstood the extreme hostility of the most powerful nation in history. The list of accomplishments is equally amazing: a higher literacy rate and higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than its antagonist. The admiration, however, has never been without criticism.

The issue of human rights, including official attitudes towards sexual orientation and political dissent, has troubled many supporters and dogged the Cuban government for years. This spring, just before the United States launched its war against Iraq, Cuba brought the human rights issue to a fever pitch by sentencing 75 political “dissidents” — all with an active connection to James Cason, the new American Interests Section chief in Havana — to long prison terms and by executing, following a one-day trial, three hijackers. The debate about these actions amongst the whole range of Cuban supporters has been intense. Carlos Fernandez de Cossio is Cubaâe(TM)s ambassador to Canada and a key figure in the next generation of Cuban leaders.

Murray Dobbin: Many supporters of Cuba were dismayed this past spring by the actions of the Cuban government in executing three hijackers and in sentencing self-described dissidents to long prison terms. People who followed the case and its background level the criticism that Cuba was not seriously threatened by these individuals as Cuban security forces had infiltrated the groups in question and knew their every move. How does the Cuban government justify these harsh actions?

Carlos Fernandez: First of all, the two issues have to be looked at separately. Yet both are in the same context. The 75 people who were arrested in Cuba are by no means the only people who protest in Cuba — who disagree with some or all of the governmentâe(TM)s policies. The people we prosecuted were people who were violating the law, were knowingly violating the law. Laws that were established to protect Cuba from foreign aggression, foreign aggression that comes from the United States. For a long period, Cuba had decided to have a flexible approach to these people knowing that in spite of what they were doing there was not much of a threat.

But the actions of the current United States administration and their designation of lists of countries that could be eventually subject to military aggression changed that. Their disregard of any international law that could stand in the way of such aggression and the fact that very influential people who are strong enemies of Cuba have been advocating with the Bush administration to take the step of military action against Cuba, made us feel strongly that we do face a real concrete threat.

We believe that today there is almost nothing that can stop the United States from taking such an action. Evidently the UN, despite its opposition to such actions, cannot stop the U.S. Public opinion, in spite of its opposition to such action, wonâe(TM)t stop the U.S. Even opposition from its allies wonâe(TM)t stop the U.S. Only Cubaâe(TM)s determination to defend its country and to stop any element that could serve an aggression of this type will stop such an aggression.

The people who were prosecuted are people, in a moment of escalation of United States hostility and aggression, who serve and have served as mercenaries or agents of a foreign government which is against the law in Cuba. We do have a right to apply our laws which existed before the trial in Cuba and we do have reason to think that these people can be a real danger to our country.

M.D. Few people who want to support Cuba would dispute anything you have said about the threat of the United States and the right of Cuba to enforce its laws. Yet they also ask whether these actions were strategically the smartest thing for Cuba to have done. I am thinking specifically of the executions. Is it not possible that you lost more in global support from those who support Cuba than you gained in reinforcing your security?

C.F. You raise a real and legitimate concern. Clearly, Cuba did not do this to enrage our enemies or to offend our friends. We measured the costs before we acted. We knew that a heavy propaganda attack would come down on us, but we could not allow the United States to believe that they had the means and the forces within Cuba that would allow them to make the mistake of invading Cuba and cause the loss of thousands of lives. For us it was important to let the United States know that there was no basis for them to miscalculate in any aggressive plans they might have.

Now that could always be a debate in the future — perhaps it will turn out to have been a strategic mistake. We think that it would have been a strategic mistake if we trusted that nothing would happen and then a year from now the United States builds a phony case against us, with the help of their mass media, portraying these people as a core group capable of forming a government in Cuba. On this basis the United States could trick itself — falsely convince itself — into believing that they could successfully invade and occupy Cuba. This is exactly what happened with Iraq.

M.D. Since George W. Bush came to power Cuba has been subjected to new and more aggressive provocations from the U.S. Could you describe some of these?

C.F. This administration came to power with closer ties to and stronger support from what we call the Cuban American mafia — extreme right groups in Miami with a history of terrorist activity — than any other president in the history of our bilateral conflict. As a result, the Bush administration came to power with a greater commitment to those people and a greater identification with their views. One of the areas that has changed as a result is the migration issue.

We achieved with the United States a migratory agreement in 1994-95 as a result of which the United States granted a minimum of 20,000 visas to Cubans each year, and the United States committed itself to measures to prevent people from using illegal means to migrate to the United States [and] to measures such as returning people who were caught on the high seas. But the United States has always had a loophole in this arrangement — a law called the Cuban Adjustment Act — thanks to which any Cuban who does reach the United States coast is immediately accepted as a resident. This measure becomes an encouragement for anyone who wishes to migrate and it becomes, above all, an encouragement to people who do alien smuggling.

The United States had been living up to its commitment of providing 20,000 visas, but since the Bush administration sent its new Head of Mission to Cuba last year, they have reduced the number of visas granted to less than 1,000. This has created problems for Cuba which, like other Latin American countries, faces a strong migratory pressure towards the U.S. People who have calculated that they would be given a visa to go to the United States have discovered that it will be very difficult to obtain one. At the same time they are received as heroes in the United States if they use violent means to enter the U.S. All of this adds up to a major encouragement to commit acts of violence or piracy to migrate to the U.S.

The Helms-Burton (HB) law states that if an uncontrolled migratory flow takes place from Cuba to the U.S., the United States should take this as an act of aggression and should respond in kind. Actions such as those that have occurred over the past year for us equate to creating the conditions for an act of aggression — to allow the United States to apply their law which means that they should react to Cuba militarily if Cuba can be accused of launching an uncontrolled migratory flow.

M.D. One of the most serious developments between the United States and Cuba is the issue that has been dubbed the “Cuban Five” — the five Cubans who are now in jail in the United States convicted of espionage. Could you explain their story?

C.F. These are five Cuban men who, as a result of the persistent terrorist actions carried out from the territory of the United States against Cuba, took on the task of infiltrating these organizations. They infiltrated them to learn what they did, to alert the Cuban government to terrorist activity. There are individuals and organizations that have been organizing, financing and carrying out terrorist actions in Cuba for years. Many of them are ex-CIA agents from the 1960s and ’70s who have continued in a semi-private way carrying out these actions but with the tolerance and to a great extent with the complicity of the United States government .

Faced with United States tolerance of these terrorist activities we have been forced to infiltrate these organizations and that is what these five men did. They did not infiltrate the United States government or government agencies nor were they in the United States to act against the interests of the U.S.

For this, they were convicted in a very unfair trial which violated many United States legal processes. They were tried in Miami and sentenced to extremely long terms — one got two consecutive life sentences, two got 19 years and one got 15 years. Nothing was proved against them except being non-registered agents of a foreign government and in some cases it was proven that they were living under a false identity. Nothing else was proved. No witness was able to corroborate that they took any action that would endanger the security of the U.S. There was no evidence whatever of what in the United States is defined as espionage.

They have been subjected to extremely harsh conditions. Before the trial — for seventeen months — each one of them was in solitary confinement; they were allowed no reading material; they were scattered in jails around the country and not allowed any visits from their families.

M.D. What is the political background to these trials and convictions?

C.F. It seems that the United States had monitored these men for about a year before they were arrested. They had detected that they were acting as agents of the Cuban government and had concluded that they were no danger to the United States government and simply tolerated their presence. In the summer of 1998, when terrorist actions started to build in Cuba and after serious terrorists actions were taken against the United States in different parts of the world, the United States called for co-operation from foreign governments.

Cuba once again reiterated that we were ready to co-operate but that we knew that there was terrorism being generated in the United States against our country. They said that they wanted proof — we said we had that — and they sent a high level FBI delegation to Havana to discuss this. We presented them with abundant evidence of what was being planned; they said they would come back in two weeks with their response. A month and a half later they arrested these five men.

They did not arrest them because of what they learned as a result of the meeting; they arrested them evidently because we were getting too close to powerful individuals in the United States. You see, not only is there tolerance of terrorist activity by the United States government but there is a strong intimacy between those terrorist groups and figures within important agencies of the United States government with important political contacts. Evidently the government felt it was not in their interest for this level of information to continue to flow to Cuba making it possible for it to become widely known.

M.D. What is the current situation regarding the Cuban Five?

C.F. An appeal of the convictions and sentences was launched in April and we are waiting for a response from the government. We have been told that we will be given an oral hearing to make our case for the appeal in which we will be allowed just three minutes to present our arguments for appeals on all five cases. Perhaps early next year we could hear from the appeals court on what we have requested — that is, a retrial in a venue other than Miami where we argue it is impossible to get a fair trial.

murray_dobbinBW

Murray Dobbin

Murray Dobbin was rabble.ca's Senior Contributing Editor. He was a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist for over 40 years. A board member and researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy...