WASHINGTON -- A compromise deal reached by House negotiators on a
Cuba agricultural trade bill has stymied efforts to open direct
travel between the U.S and the Caribbean island.
The bill, which still has to be approved by the House, allows
the U.S. to continue to provide humanitarian aid to Cuba and
relaxes some restrictions regarding the sale of agricultural
products to the country.
The bill requires Cuban President Fidel Castro to pay up front
for any aid Cuba receives from the U.S. and restricts the Cuban
government from accessing any U.S. credit programs or exporting
goods to the U.S.
Significantly, the bill, which has been described by proponents
as anti-Castro and pro-economic, clamps down on any attempt by the
Clinton administration to open tourism to Cuba.
Indeed, according to Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who with
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
were key negotiators on the compromise bill, tourism to Cuba would
be "explicitly prohibited by law."
In June 1998, the Clinton administration proposed allowing more
direct commercial flights between the U.S. and Cuba, taking a
limited step toward improving access and humanitarian aid to the
country while maintaining the 36-year-old embargo on Cuba.
"Closing off Clinton's tourism option for Castro is our most
important achievement in years," said Cuban-born Diaz-Balart, a
member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, in a statement.
"We are extremely pleased."
Closing the tourism option effectively cut the legs out from
under a bill (H.R. 4471), sponsored by Rep. Marshall Sanford
(R-S.C.), which would have allowed direct flights between the U.S.
and Cuba.
"It is really bad for our system of government when you have
three [lawmakers] basically driving national foreign policy,"
Sanford said in an interview with Travel Weekly.
Others in the House view the strict policies toward Cuba as
ineffective, if not inconsistent.
Sanford echoed a growing sentiment in Congress, perhaps
crystallized by the events surrounding the Elian Gonzalez custody
battle, that years of sanctions have done little to destabilize the
Cuban government.
Sanford said he considers the Cuban embargo inconsistent with
U.S. foreign policy, which has fostered relations with other
communist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, Vietnam and
China.
Sanford said the House bill creates a "finance squeeze" on Cuba
that nevertheless would have a minimal effect on changing the
government.
"If you opened up tourism, you are looking at a lot more
impact," said Sanford.
Nevertheless, hard-liners such as Diaz-Balart insist normalized
relations with Cuba are impossible so long as human rights
violations persist in that country, as dissidents are typically
imprisoned.
Furthermore, according to Diaz-Balart's representatives, Cuba
follows a Cold War-era Soviet model, controlling all
businesses.
While the trade bill is expected to easily pass the House, it
might face a difficult time in the Senate.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a member of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, has sponsored a bill that would lift the
U.S. trade embargo on Cuba and open tourism.
It is likely that Baucus' legislation would become part of the
Senate's trade bill, setting the stage for a contentious conference
committee. The Senate "may not accept [the House provision], and it
may get stripped out in conference," Sanford said.
"Tourism may get inserted. So there is still room for [the House
bill] to possibly disintegrate, which would be my hope."
If it does, it could breathe new life into Sanford's tourism
bill as well as the debate against it.