By Ena Cefo
On April 14th, 2015, President
Barack Obama recommended
that Cuba be removed from the U.S. government’s list of “state sponsors of
terrorism”—following a review and report by the State
Department, which found that Cuba met the criteria for rescission from the
list. Until now, Cuba had remained on the list along with just Iraq, Sudan and
Syria. The removal of Cuba from the list will “eliminate
some sanctions, including restrictions on foreign assistance, a ban on defense
exports and other financial regulations, though the embargo remains in place
[because lifting the embargo requires Congressional action,
such as the proposed bipartisan bill by Senator Klobuchar].”
Three statutes
authorize the Secretary of State to designate a “state sponsor of terrorism”:
(1) the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 §620(A), stating that “no assistance shall be
furnished under this act to the present government of Cuba”; (2) the Arms Export Control Act
§40 which prohibits the export or transfer of munitions or technical assistance
for munitions, as well as any financial assistance in regards to the
acquisition of munitions; and (3) the Export Administration Act of
1979 §6(j) which requires validated licenses for the export of goods or
technology to a state sponsor of terrorism. President Obama certified to
Congress that: (a) Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism
during the preceding 6 months and (b) Cuba has provided assurances that it will
not support acts of terrorism in the future. Following President Obama’s April
14th certification, Congress now has 45 days to pass a joint resolution prohibiting
Cuba’s rescission from the list; otherwise, the rescission takes effect.
President Obama’s decision has met controversy
in Congress. Supporters of the rescission such as Senator Dick Durbin “believe
that opening up the island to American ideas, vibrancy, and trade is the most
effective way to see a more open and tolerant Cuba.” Meanwhile, opponents of Cuba’s
rescission from the list have been critical in part due to Cuba’s refusal to
extradite American fugitives and in part due to their continued opposition to
the Castro regime and its poor human rights record.
Opponents of the rescission believe
that Cuba’s classification as a “state sponsor of terrorism”—in addition to the
sanctions and embargo—is necessary to coerce Cuba to improve its human rights. Admittedly,
Cuba’s human rights record has been poor. Human Rights
Watch reported that Cuba continued to suppress political dissidence through
arbitrary arrest and detention, political imprisonment, and harassment. The State
Department’s report criticized Cuba’s suppression of civil liberties and
political rights—the freedom of speech and press, the freedom of peaceful
assembly and association, the right of citizens to change their government, and
the denial of civil society groups to function. Amnesty
International reported that peaceful demonstrators, journalists and
activists are detained, access to the media is limited, and political opponents
are penalized through several measures including the denial of travel visas and
arbitrary detentions.
Yet, the U.S. designation of Cuba
as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” the sanctions and the embargo have also had
undesired effects on the rights of Cuban civilians—by imposing indiscriminate
hardship and poverty on the entire Cuban population. The designation of “state
sponsor of terrorism” has deterred financial institutions from engaging with
Cuba and has damaged Cuba’s ability to conduct international financial
transactions. Human
Rights Watch has consistently criticized the classification, sanctions and embargo
as failing to bring improvements to human rights and being counterproductive to
U.S. interests in Cuba, while providing the Castro regime with an
easy excuse for Cuba’s bleak situation. The UN General Assembly most
recently adopted Resolution A/67/118 on the “[n]ecessity of ending the
economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States
against Cuba” with a vote of 188 to 3. Several countries (and organizations) cited
the embargo as having an adverse effect on the human rights of Cuban civilians
by exacerbating the challenges of poverty and hunger, unemployment, and access
to healthcare and education. The UN Children’s Fund also cited the adverse
impact of the embargo on children’s health and education. Additionally, the travel ban
imposed by the U.S. to cut off financial benefits to the government from travel
to the country has also impeded the right of Cuban-Americans to return to their
own countries.
While the U.S. will likely continue
to have differences with the Cuban government, removing Cuba from the list of
“state sponsors of terrorism” opens the door for engagement between the two
countries and reduces the undesired effects of U.S.-led isolation on Cuban
civilians.
0 comments:
Post a Comment