>from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Cuba -Message to US State Dept. >Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 > > >The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its complements to the Honorable >Embassy of Switzerland, the Interest Section of the United States of >America, and takes this opportunity to inform the following. >Last Monday, 28 August, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs received Note >241/19 >from the State Department in texts delivered in Washington and Havana - >which, although very similar are curiously, not identical -. One of the >versions of the Note was simultaneously given by its authors to the press in >Washington D.C. We are replying to it with this Note. Later the same day >State Department spokesman, Philip Reeker, made some statements which >deserve comment in our reply. Peter Romero, the Undersecretary of State >and >even the Secretary of State herself have added their voices to these kinds >of comments in a slanderous publicity stunt. This suspiciously coincides >with the visit to Miami of the presidential candidates who are competing for >contributions from and the support of the Cuban-American terrorist mafia. > >The State Department's version is an attempt devoid of any seriousness >which tries to falsify facts and cover up the irresponsible behavior of its >government which openly and systematically violates the migration >accords signed with Cuba. > >The only truth about the US note is that everything it states - even the >most ludicrous aspects --has been said before by the US representatives at >the bilateral migration talks. On every occasion the Cuban delegation has >given an appropriate reply and has demonstrated the superficiality or lack >of foundation of the US allegations. The State Department's Note doesn't >refer to that. Neither is there any mention of the basic problems which >seriously affect the implementation of the migration accords and which >have been what have in fact taken up the greater part of the time in our >talks, as can be seen from the minutes of the meetings. Common sense tells >us that we should first refer to these important matters, not forgetting to >reply, one by one, to the list of falsehoods, on other issues, all of them >secondary, with which the State Department's document is packed to the >brim. > >We have done this patiently in the bilateral meetings. We are left with no >other recourse than to do this publicly, since that is what Washington has >done. > >In one of his most picturesque statements, Mr. Reeker made reference to >the denunciations made by Cuba against the Cuban Adjustment Act and >presented them as an alleged excuse and as something which our >government has only recently raised. Nothing could be farther from the >truth. That Act, the policy behind it, its nefarious consequences and the >need to put an end to it have always been the main issue raised by the >Cuban delegation. >Therefore, these issues have always been at the core of the discussions >during the bilateral talks, including those that led to the accords of 1984, >1994 and 1995. > >After intensive negotiations at the most recent talks in the summer of 1994, >an agreement was reached on 9 September. In its first paragraph it states >specifically that: "Those migrants who are rescued at sea and who are >trying to enter the United States will not be permitted to enter the United >States" >. Further on it adds that: "In addition, the United States has discontinued >its practice of giving provisional entry to all Cuban migrants who reach US >territory by irregular means". It is easy to understand that this paragraph >contains a clear recognition by the United States, which up to that point >had taken anyone interdicted at sea to its territory. It also admitted >anyone who arrived under his or her own steam and it offered resident >status to everyone under the Cuban Adjustment Act. The clear, explicit >commitment in this paragraph to cease this practice is the foundation on >which the accords of 1994 and 1995 were based. > >The United States' compliance with this obligation began to weaken as time >went by. The return to Cuba of people rescued at sea has become more and >more selective and the number of people taken to United States territory by >Coast Guard units has grown. Cuba has repeatedly denounced this situation, >as we have done about Washington's systematic and arrogant refusal to >release any information about those who somehow manage to reach its >shores. >And that's in spite of the fact that both the authorities and relatives in >Cuba have the duty and the right to request this information, especially >when there have been accidents. > >Moreover, on April 19 last year, the Commissioner of the Immigration and >Naturalization Service, Doris Meissner, circulated a memo to her >subordinates making clear the fact that the provisions of the 1996 >Migration Law to be applied to persons of any other nationality were not to >be applied to Cuban migrants "no matter how they reached the United >States". Cubans were to continue to be admitted and then granted residence >as per the Cuban Adjustment Act. A week later, on April 26, the INS >reiterated this decision in a press release. The US government's subversive >radio broadcasts aimed at Cuba, the libelous propaganda from the >aforementioned mafia and the commercial media all gave wide coverage to >the Commissioner's announcements and have spent their time magnifying >each instance of illegal migration by creating a seditious policy christened >"wetfoot/dryfoot".They have gone as far as to allege that this policy is >related to the migration accords. Since then Cuba has protested and >complained through diplomatic channels about what is a serious and >irresponsible violation not only of the spirit but also of the letter of the >accords adopted in 1994 and 1995. > >On June 2, 1999 this was one of the main topics around which the bilateral >meeting held in New York revolved. Specifically, our delegation called on >the US representatives to explain the meaning of the policy announced by >the Commissioner and to explain how it could be consistent with the >existence of the accords which it obviously contradicted and undermined. >This >contradiction was so obvious that on that occasion the US delegation could >not give an official answer. However it promised to issue one later through >diplomatic channels. During the following six months, in spite of our >repeated requests, the United States could not or did not want to try to >give an explanation. That's how we arrived at the following round of >migration talks held in Havana on December 13. This was, in essence, a >replay of the round of talks held in June: Cuba denouncing the criminal >Cuban Adjustment Act, its amendments and additions since April of the >previous year, and the United States still being incapable of explaining its >irresponsible and incoherent policy which ignores the accords it has >signed and impinges, day after day, on its effectiveness. > >The other subject on which the attention of both delegations was focussed, >both in June as in December, was that of people smuggling. On both >occasions we denounced Washington's inaction -- bordering-on -- >tolerance of this growing and abject trafficking. That jeopardizes the lives >of human beings for the profit of gangs of criminals which are organized >in the United States by people who live there and operate from their >territory using US means and resources. We have insisted on the US >obligation to pursue and really punish this crime, we have demanded that >the guilty persons be brought to trial over there and in order to make >things easier for them, in June we gave them 26 files on individuals >involved in such crimes whom we had arrested in Cuba up to that date. They >have done nothing about it. > >We reiterated our demand in December, only that, by then, the number of >smugglers in jail in Cuba had increased to 56. We reiterate our demand >today, when the number is already 68. >When we met in Havana last year, it was relatively early on in the affair of >the kidnapping and arbitrary detention in the United States of the child >Elian Gonzalez Brotons. This case was, without doubt, a dramatic indication >of where US policy leads. On the very day we met, 13 December, two US >officials met in C�rdenas with Juan Miguel Gonzalez, the child's father, and >were given abundant proof of what an exemplary father he is. If >Washington had attached even the tiniest importance to international >standards, if it had been encouraged by any respect for order and legality >in migration issues, if, at the very least, it had followed its own laws or >the >feelings of its own people, the Elian's case would have been resolved a few >days after that round of Migration Talks. What happened afterwards is only >too well known. > >In view of the fact that, in spite of our efforts, there had been no >progress whatsoever in matters as fundamental as the implementation of >the Cuban Adjustment Act and people smuggling, and with the constructive >spirit of trying to create conditions conducive to the full implementation of >the accords signed, Cuba proposed and publicly announced, that we would >meet again in January 2000 to discuss these issues. Although this proposal >was accepted in principle by the visiting delegation, the spokesman of the >State Department, almost immediately, rejected it when speaking to the >press. >When we presented them our protest they replied that what the spokesman >had said was not the official position and that the US side was looking for a >date for the meeting initially agreed upon. Several months went by and the >Americans suggested that we meet in June, on the very days when the US >Supreme Court's decision on the Elian Gonzalez case was expected, since that >situation had gone on so long and had reached that point due to theunheard >of behavior of the US authorities. For that reason, and once again, as an >expression of our constructive spirit, we suggested that the meeting be >postponed until conditions were more favorable. We have been waiting for >the United States to suggest a date ever since. > >Therefore, if this were not a matter of importance which affects the lives >of human beings, what it says in the US note when it allows itself "to call >upon the Cuban government to agree to immediately resume the Migration >Talks which it had previously postponed", would move to laughter. It turns >out to be impossible to suppress an amused astonishment when reading in >the same Note a reference to "a profound and meaningful dialogue on >migration issues" >. Would the State Department dare to repeat this phrase in front of its >friends in Miami? Isn't this the same State Department which on the eve of >and after each and every migration meeting took great pains to repeat that >it was only a technical, routine, unimportant meeting as they surely did >when they finally announced in June the "profound and meaningful" >meeting which had been suggested to them six months earlier? > >Let's move on to give a brief examination to the "profound and meaningful" >themes mentioned in the State Department's Note. >They begin by stating that the Cuban policy would supposedly be "forcing >legally qualified migrants to consider illegal migration as a means of >gaining entry into the United States". The reply to this utter falsehood is >what the Cuban delegation has proposed, and to which it has had no reply, >in the bilateral talks: let them name one person, at least one who having >obtained a US visa had decided to risk his or her life in an illegal journey >because Cuba would have prevented them from leaving through ordinary >means. >There in the United States they have accepted several thousands of Cubans >over the last few years who have arrived illegally. Why have they never >mentioned a single one who had a US visa? > >Without ever having given a concrete example, however, the Note >continues to >claim that what is at issue here is "a large and growing number" and, >showing an arrogant disregard for international law, it allows itself to >issue judgements on Cuban norms and regulations inherent to our internal >jurisdiction and therefore within our exclusive sphere of competence. In >doing so they show special interest in two categories of people: defectors >and health professionals. Although it is understandable that the Empire >would try to favor those who place themselves at its disposal, there is no >moral justification for giving preference to those individuals who decided >to betray their native land and abandon their families over and above >citizens who want to emigrate through ordinary means. As for the few >health professionals willing to follow the siren songs of Washington, this is >a shameful demonstration of the US practice of attempting to rob an >underdeveloped country of its qualified personnel who, from the time they >were preschoolers, were educated and trained in Cuba free of charge >thanks to the sacrifice of the people and as a result of a policy of social and >educational development. Over there, in spite of their economic power, they >have been unable to implement such policies and that is reflected in the >deplorable conditions of more than forty million US citizens lacking >adequate health coverage. Such behavior is twice as despicable if one takes >into account that it also attempts to sabotage the comprehensive health >programs that Cuba, in spite of its poverty, the blockade and the United >States' economic warfare offers to a great many Third World countries, >providing health care to millions of people and saving thousands of lives. > >Unabated in its unreflecting interference, the Note claims to have the right >of expressing opinions about the payments that are to be made by >emigrants for certain services that the Cuban society provides them with so >that they can meet the requirements established by the United States. These >services, which include expensive medical examinations, have to be >provided to them by the only country in the world suffering from a total >economic blockade which renders scarce or makes it difficult to gain access >to the supplies needed to provide these services. A country, moreover, >which has guaranteed all its citizens, even to those who decide to >immigrate, free education and medical care for life. > >But it is simply amazing that it would occur to Washington to allude to this >matter when they are the ones who charge large sums of money to anyone >who aspires to emigrate to or visit that country, including in those >numerous cases when visas are denied. So as to refresh their memories let >them be reminded of a few facts. Just for being interviewed, those who >manage to be included in the so-called Special Cuban Migration Program, >they must pay the USIS $US260. Those who appear in the so-called World >Program must shell out$US350. >In both cases, if the applicants are ultimately not granted visas, >their money is not returned to them. Those who do get a visa must pay an >additional $US65. As for those Cubans who only wish to visit the United >States, they have to pay $US45 just to be interviewed and, in the case that >they are granted a visa, they must hand over another $US26. If the visa is >denied, as in the previous two cases, their money is not returned. We will >not go into other charges that immigrants have to incur into for various >formalities for this would fill up several other pages. These include, for >example, the $US220 which they have to pay to apply for residence and the >$US100 for a work permit. Do those in the State Department remember the >basic rules of arithmetics? How much have they gained from this lucrative >business in Cuba and in the world even when the would-be immigrants had >not benefited from US benevolence? > >To sum up, the Note encloses a list of those affected by what they call "a >large and growing problem". It is about no less than 56 cases. In one of >the most amusing moments of his meeting with the press, Mr. Reeker, >alluding to the alleged difficulties to emigrate which originate in the costs >which have to be paid to Cuba, mentioned another ever more enlightening >number: one person who, according to him, has not been able to emigrate >for that reason. > >By the way, in the version of the Note delivered in Havana there is a >paragraph which does not appear in the one that was given to us in >Washington, which advices that some of these cases might have been >resolved and that perhaps some of the people mentioned in the annex >might have already emigrated. > >What is the significance of these ridiculous figures when contrasted with >the more than one hundred thousand who have emigrated legally since >1994 under the provisions of the accords? What about the tens of thousands >of people, including thousands of counterrevolutionary ex-prisoners who >acted >against our country in the service of the US and their families, who have >emigrated over the course of the years by virtue of the consistent and >serious policy and the generous principles which have always ruled our >migration policy? After all, what would be the significance of 56 cases of >individuals or families who may not have been able to emigrate, as >compared to the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, who from January >1959 on have been received by Washington with open arms, without >having met any requirements. These include Batista's followers and their >coterie of murderers and embezzlers who before and after the accords stole >boats and used crime and violence to help them emigrate. >Towards the end of its note, the State Department brings together several >issues which it says are pending and requests that they are addressed with >the "seriousness they deserve". These are: > >� To allow a new registration period for persons who wish >to participate in the so-called Special Cuban Migration Program. They have >already implemented this Program three times, the most recent occasion >being >in 1998. They claim they had destroyed the information they had. When we >authorized this on the last occasion they were advised to keep the >information safely since we were not prepared to allow the repetition of a >mechanism clearly directed at matters connected with the US aggressive >policy against Cuba and having nothing to do with migration matters. > >� Clearance to use an additional, larger port for the >repatriation of the illegal migrants that they return. In the meetings with >their representatives, the United States has not been able to explain either >the need for nor the importance of this request, especially when the >number >of people they return is getting less every year. > >� An addition to consular personnel at the United States >Interests Section in Havana and permission to send consular circuit riders >to Santiago. We see no justification whatsoever for these requests and we >have made that known to them. It is ironic that in the same Note in which >they maliciously and falsely allege there are imaginary difficulties created >by Cuba impeding the normal migratory flow, they raise the question of >needing more officials to deal with this flow. > >� Agreement on the unconditional return to Cuba of those >whom they call "repeat rafters". This curious designation seems to refer to >people who, having already established themselves in the United States, >enter and leave Cuba illegally. This is an unacceptable demand, among >another reasons because activities associated with people smuggling and >other crimes can be hidden behind this practice. > >� Better access to repatriated migrants as part of the >U.S. government's "monitoring" efforts. (This phrase appears in the text >delivered in Washington but it is not in the version handed over in >Havana). >As to this point, we must reiterate to Washington that Cuba has no >obligation whatsoever in this respect. There is not one single line about >this in the text of the Migration Accords. We have allowed this access in >the past as a gesture of courtesy, but some time ago we advised them that we >did not consider that we were necessarily obliged to continue doing so in >the future. As a reminder, we should point out that in 1997 their officials >made 9 journeys to the interior of the country, supposedly to meet with 799 >repatriated persons; in 1998 they traveled on 11 occasions to meet with 811 >persons; in 1999 they traveled on 15 ocassions to meet with 2,813 citizens; >and so far this year the figures are 9 journeys to meet with 821 people. As >the State Department well knows, meetings with people returned to Cuba >only served to show that none were subject to reprisals for having tried to >emigrate illegally. This Department also well knows that the visits paid by >its officials have in fact been used for subversive activities against Cuba, >which is the main purpose of its office in Havana. > >For more than forty years, the United States has cynically manipulated >migration issues as part of the arsenal used in its fruitless attempt to >bring down the Cuban Revolution. Its behavior has never been inspired by >humanitarian considerations. Quite the contrary. It has implemented a >cruel policy causing numerous deaths and incalculable human suffering. >The Cuban Adjustment Act is the synthesis of a systematic practice of >contempt for human life and personal dignity, which must stop completely >and definitively. > >What this government needs to adjust is the status of millions of Latin >Americans who live over there in an unending legal limbo and suffer a >hell of poverty, discrimination and persecution, lacking the most elemental >human rights, marginalized in a society in which they work more than >anyone, but which excludes then completely from participating in its civil >and political life. >In the State Department's Note and in statements made by its officials, the >next round of migration talks has been mentioned several times and they >are trying to challenge Cuba about when it will be held. Our reply is very >simple: If the United states is willing to seriously discuss the real >problems, let them set an exact date, one they like best, and the Cuban >delegation will be there. > >The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew >to the Honorable Embassy of Switzerland, to the United States of America >Interests Section, the assurances of its consideration. >Havana, August 30, 2000. " JC > > _______________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________
