Christina J. Greene 9 December 1996 Political Science 472 United States Policy Towards Cuba: The Threat Continues On February 24, 1996, two private American airplanes were shot down near the island nation of Cuba by Cuban MiGs. The planes belonged to the Florida based anti-Castro group, Brothers to the Rescue. The destruction of those planes led to a still brewing international controversy. In retaliation for the destruction, the Clinton Administration signed the Helms-Burton Act on March 12, 1996. The Act is a strict policy of economic sanctions against Cuba and the Fidel Castro government. The Act, while drawing support from the Cuban American special interest committees active in American domestic politics, has enraged the international community. A domestic policy of the United States government attempts to condemn not only Cuba, but, according to the international community, the rest of Cubas trade partners as well. The objection to the Helms-Burton Act has led to accusations of violation of treaties, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and violations of the World Trade Organization. A complex web of facts and fears, perceptions and realities, history and economics, have blended together to create the current Helms-Burton Act and its controversy. A major question that arises is why? Why continue to impose sanctions on Cuba, especially when the rest of the international community objects so vehemently? Domestic support for the bill is great, but the disapproval from the international community is also great. The U.S. government is must deal with a face-off between domestic special interest groups and domestic policy and the rest of the world. Domestic politics demands action with regard to Cuba. The international community demands that the United States change its policy. The winner of this tug-of-war between domestic and foreign policies is, as of yet, undetermined. A starting point for this answer can come from historical United States and Cuba relations. The love-hate relationship with the Fidel Castro began when he took over the Cuban government in 1959. He was originally supported by the U.S. government for his anti-Communist rhetoric. That all changed when, in December of 1961, Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninist and allied himself with the Soviet government. This alliance angered the United Stated government and resulted in face-offs, two of which are rather famous. The first was the disastrous Bay of Pigs. The United States government supported anti-Castro nationalists in an attempt to start a coup and overthrow Castro. The invasion failed, and the U.S. governments involvement was known and subject to humiliation. The second event was the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis. The U. S government found Russian nuclear arms installed in Cuba. The crisis was mainly between the United States and the Soviet Union, but Cuba was caught in the middle. A blockade of Cuba was successful and the missiles were removed. In 1976, the United States tried lessening economic sanctions and relaxing travel to Cuba. The result was Cuba sending 15,000 troops to Ethiopia and increased Cuban presence in other African countries. Castro then supported guerrilla factions in Latin American countries by offering military assistance. The final straw came in 1980 when Castro allowed 125,000 people to flee to the United States. Among these refugees were several thousand criminals and hundreds of the mentally ill. During this time, the Soviet and Cuban governments remained close until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Relations with Cuba did not improve. 1 Cuba has, for many years been on the United States governments terrorist list. In a speech made in 1985, President Ronald Reagan named Cuba, Iran, Libya, Nicaragua, and North Korea as members of a confederation of terrorist states. He believed these countries engaged in state-sponsored terrorism and their main goal was to undermine American foreign policy. 2 In keeping with this perception, the U.S. Congress in 1992 passed the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) after Castro refused to allow democratic elections in Cuba. The objective was to weaken the Castro regime and promote democracy on the island. It also sought to open Cuban communication and provided for humanitarian aid for the Cuban people. 3 This historic information provides insight into a theory of U.S. threat perceptions. In Robert Jervis book, Psychology of Deterrence, a great deal of time is spent on the theory of threat perception and why states act they way they do. Threat perception is an excellent way of unraveling the mystery of a states behavior. The perception of the actor state is an indication of its behavior. If one understands the way the leaders or decision-makers think, then it is possible to decipher their actions. The reasons behind the United States threat perception vis-`-vis Cuba are grounded in motivated and unmotivated biases, and historical perceptions. But, what makes one state perceive another as a threat? According to Jervis, A state is likely to be seen as a threat if it displays a willingness to ignore accepted procedure, a disregard of what are usually considered the legitimate rights of others, and an exceptionally high propensity to accept risks in order to improve its position. 4 Cuban actions have historically conflicted with U.S. goals, and continue to do so. Using Jervis definition, it is clear why Cuba could still be perceived as a threat. Cuba sees to have a willingness to ignore accepted procedures. The shooting down of the Brothers to the Rescue planes is a clear example. The action violated accepted standards of behavior. The international community as a whole frowned on Castros actions, but the United States took the attack personally. President Clinton referred to it as an act of terrorism. Cuba has been known to flout accepted norms of behavior in the past. For example, when Castro first came to power in 1959, he claimed to be against a dictatorial governmental system, so he was against communism. Two short years later, in 1961, Castro publicly announced himself to be a Marxist-Leninist. 5 This was an unacceptable action for the United States. The Missile Crisis a few years later was another violation of accepted norms of behavior. Cuba is also perceived as a threat for their disregard of human rights. Cuba was under scrutiny by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 1992. In addition, Cuba is defined by the State Department as a totalitarian communist state. Independent political parties are technically illegal, and the communist party is the dominant party. This is seen by the U.S. as a violation of the basic rights of the Cuba people. The U.S. believes that all the world should be free democratic states, and that free trade and political and economical competition are the basis for a stable society. The domination of the Communist party in the government, and the fact that Castro has been the only leader in Cuba in more than twenty years is a violation of U.S. ideology. When Cuba became communist, a lot of land owned by American businesses, especially land concerning sugar production, was nationalized and put into the hands of the Cuba government. The taking away of what was considered private property is a fundamental problem for the American government. This allows Cuba to be seen as taking away the rights of businesses and individuals to own Cuban property and participate in international trade. The final part of Jervis definition is the willingness to accept high risk. This is a prerequisite that Cuba meets quite easily. Castro seems willing to take great risks. He took a risk in 1961 when he chose to alienate the United States and ally himself with the Soviet Union. Cuba has been active in helping other states maintain communist rule militarily in other parts of the world. The Cuban presence, however small, in countries such as the Peoples Republic of Congo and Ethiopia, is an example of this. Allowing the Soviet Union to house missiles in Cuba was a huge risk. Castro should have known that the United States would have never allowed nuclear weapons to be positioned 90 miles off the coast of Florida. He has committed a great many actions that are extremely risky. This propensity towards taking risks helps constitute the Cuban threat. Biases play a large role in threat perception. As they look to judge whether others are motivated (that is, affect-driven) and unmotivated (that is, purely cognitive) basis. 6 These biases shape the way states see each other. Biases determine how we see the world; whether we see what we want to see or we see what we expect to see. Biases allow states to either accept or discount new information in the international community. If a historic bias about a state is particularly strong, then changing policy to evaluate that new information might be extremely difficult. This can be seen with the US perceptions about Cuba. The United States has many motivated biases where Cuba is concerned. The US government wants to see Cuba as a threat for many different reasons. First, Cuba is a communist state. The entire point of the Cold War was fighting against communism. The Cold War era painted communism as an evil form of government, out to control the world. The United States had a moral obligation to defend the world from communism. Cuba is located 90 miles off the coast of the United States. This allowed communism to gain a foothold in the Western hemisphere. Cuba could export communism to other parts of the Americas. Nations could fall and a communist movement could begin and try to take over the United States. The Domino Theory was applied to Latin America in the same way it was applied to justify American intervention in Southeast Asia. This was considered a major problem and a major threat to national security. A second motivated bias rises out of the United States domestic politics. The Cuban population is active in national politics and was a major consideration in voter determination in the recent elections. When the Brothers to the Rescue airplanes was shot down, the Cuban-American population was thrown into an uproar. Cuban exiles protested at Opa-locka Airport in Miami as the Coast Guard searched for survivors of the incident. The Cuban exiles called for the US government to take drastic actions against Cuba. There was even talk of support for the US organizing an invasion force. 7 With all the protests the message was clear: something must be done. The Cuban population, including US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, called for the strengthening of Cuban sanctions. 8 The presence of the Cuban American population is a major factor in the motivated bias of seeing Cuba as a threat. In an election year, it became important that the Clinton Administration see Cuba as a threat. The Cuban population is a major voting bloc in both New Jersey and Florida. These two states were important to the Clinton Administration in the election, and Clinton responded to their demands. Clinton chose to see Cuba as a threat. Motivated biases were not the only ones at work. There are a number of unmotivated biases at work as well. With an unmotivated bias, leaders see what they expect to see. Past perceptions of states come into play here. When a state has been seen as a threat for a period of time, that perception is difficult to change and it shapes the way other states act and react. This is especially relevant with US-Cuban relations. Cuba has been perceived as a threat since Castros announcement that he was a communist in 1959. The ensuing Bay of Pigs disaster and missile crisis only strengthened Cubas threatening image. In recent years, this perception has not changed. It does not seem to matter that Cuba cannot compete economically with the United States. It cannot afford to try to export communism to other countries in the Americas. More importantly, Cubas main communist ally has fallen. These events have not ousted Castro from power, and Castro is a part of the reason Cuba is perceived as a threat. He is seen as an irrational dictator who has no regard for international laws or the human rights of his people. With this perception present, any actions Castro takes are viewed with this in mind. If these motivated and unmotivated biases shape the way leaders see events, then how do they come to the decisions they reach? This is where prospect theory comes into play. Prospect theory is a theory of whether gains or losses are more salient in a decision-makers mind. 9 It relies on the reference point, or status quo, for the decision-maker and how the situation is framed. With respect to Cuba, the American status quo is a free, America-loving, democratic Cuba. This is the goal for America; it is why sanctions have been imposed. The evaluation of losses versus gains is particularly important here. A loss for the United States would be considered disastrous. Loss aversion is important to the United States. The government is concentrating so heavily on avoiding loss that it is imposing economical sanctions that might not work and are angering the international community. The expected gain of a democratic Cuba is more important to the U.S. than the anger of the international community. The United States is willing to take the risk of angering the international community and being challenged in international courts rather than lose the chance to create a democratic Cuba. Prospect theory also works to frame Cubas actions. Castro is also loss averse. His reference point is allowing Cuba to remain communist. He wants to stand up to the imperialist United States. Castros loss, Cuba falling to American pressure and becoming a democratic government, is more important than anything else. He is willing to take large risks, such as shooting down civilian air-crafts and being challenged in the United Nations Human Rights Commission, in order to avoid the loss of power. It has become a battle of wills, and whose resolve, that is Clintons or Castros, is stronger. While Castro is determined to maintain power in Cuba, it is obvious that the United States is in a better position to win. The United States is much stronger militarily and economically than Cuba, so why should Castro bother? There are no clear answers but there are theories. One of the is the theory of Windows of Opportunity and Basements of Fear. The term "windows of opportunity" refers to an idea that decision-makers act with the freedom of choice to reach their particular goals. 10 Castro can be seen as operating from a window of opportunity historically during the Cold War. The alliance with the Soviet Union allowed Castro to become a player in the game of international communism. He could even stand up to the United States. Castro could think of himself as a power. In a way, the windows theory can also be used to describe Castro today. The economic sanctions imposed by the US are actually strengthening Castro economically. 11 They are allowing him the freedom to stand up to the US. The sanctions increase trade with Europe and are bolstering Cuba economically. Basements of fear is another theory, opposite to windows of opportunity. The basement analogy is that leaders lack choices and they minimize expected losses. 12 This theory explains much of Cubas post-Cold War policy. The breakdown of communism had a deep impact on Cuba. Castro has lost his major military backup. In addition, Cuba has lost its position as communist leader in Latin American. This places Castro in a desperate situation. Cuba is being bombarded with economic sanctions at a time when it can no longer hide behind its communist ally. Stability in Cuba is at a major turning point; what happens next is anyones guess, and the United States wants to be there to ensure the process falls toward American wishes. At the heart of the Cuban sanctions is the Helms-Burton or the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act. This legislation is a series of sanctions against not only the government of Cuba but the businesses that trade with Cuba as well. The Act serves many functions, among them are bringing democracy to the Cuban people, encouraging Cuba to join the family of nations, provide security for the United States against the Castro regime, the promotion of a Untied States monitored democratic government, and the protection of U.S. nationals from wrongful takings and trafficking by the Castro regime. There is much more to the bill but the preceding is the basic purposes of the legislation. As discussed earlier, the legislation arises out of a domestic political call for action after the shooting down of the civilian air-crafts. Clinton responded and the Helms-Burton Act was passed. Even after passing the legislation, it is not smooth sailing for the United States government. The Helms-Burton Act has angered the international community. There were massive protests in Cuba. Canada, Mexico, and the European Community are particularly affected by the legislation. Title IV of the Act forbids trafficking in Cuba. Trafficking is defined as including transfers, distributes, dispenses, brokers or otherwise disposes of confiscated property; purchases, receives, obtains control of, or otherwise acquires confiscated property; or improves or invests in (other than for routine maintenance) or begins to manage, lease, possess, use or hold an interest in confiscated property. 13 It is basically any sort of business dealings in Cuba. The penalties for trafficking in Cuba could be exclusion from the United States and subjection to legal proceedings by Cuban exiles in the United States. 14 The provisions of the Helms-Burton Act were objected to by the international community. Canada and Mexico both have trade relations with Cuba and the United States. In fact, there is a trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the U.S., the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Helms-Burton legislation seems to interfere with policies agreed to in the NAFTA treaty. One example of this can be found in Article 1102 of the treaty that addresses national treatment. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale of other disposition of investments. 15 This article says that the participants of the treaty must respect the most favorite nation status of the investors of those participants. The United States is not doing that with the Helms-Burton legislation. It is subjecting the citizens of its trade partner to possible exclusion from the United States and legal proceedings in American courts. The Canadians were less than pleased with the passage of this legislation. According to Canadas Trade Minister, Canada finds objectionable the Helms-Burton bill, which could interfere with companies engaged in legitimate business and which attempts to extend U.S. law to other jurisdictions. 16 Mexico expressed similar concerns, as have the European Union (the EU), and Russia. It has not stopped at concerns, however. Canada and Mexico have petitioned the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the grounds that the United States has violated the NAFTA treaty. In addition, the EU has also filed formal protestations with the WTO. European ambassadors have written to Congressional officials, such as Newt Gingrich and Robert Dole, protesting Helms-Burton and informing of the decision to seek consultation with the WTO. 17 The EU has filed under Article XXIII of the World Trade Agreement. This article prohibits the United States from restraining the liberty of the EU to export to Cuba or trade in Cuban goods, and to restrict the freedom of EU ships and their cargo to transit through U.S. ports. The objection to Helms-Burton has not been overlooked by the U.S. government. U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor has held that Helms-Burton does not violate the NAFTA treaty. He claims that NAFTA does not prohibit the United States from protecting its national security and it reserved the right to bar anyone from the country who was involved in crimes of moral turpitude. 18 The United States position is that Helms-Burton is a matter of national security, which is a valid justification for legislation of this type. It is still a very touchy area because of the extraterritorality of the sanctions. A basic fact cannot be overlooked: the United States is attempting to impose domestic politics on other countries. Cuba cannot be that much of a threat to national security. It is true that the Cuban government ordered the destruction of two American civilian air-crafts. However, the Brothers to the Rescue organization had been warned before about crossing into Cuban airspace. The civilian air traffic control tower in Havana did warn the pilots they were in danger. 19 There is still some controversy as to whether or not the planes were shot down over international or Cuban airspace. The international community denounced Cubas actions, but the United States is the only one that imposed any sort of retributive actions. The international community was not consulted, however, and the result is the controversy brewing right now. The outcome has yet to be determined and, meanwhile, the Helms-Burton sanctions have gone into effect. A great deal has been discussed about sanctions but the question of what sanctions are and what function they perform has yet to be answered. Economic sanctions have been defined as deliberate, government-inspired withdrawalor threat of withdrawalof customary trade or financial relations. 20 They are tools of coercion; they attempt to change an actors behavior. They can also be used to punish and actor for an undesirable behavior. In short, they can be used for either retribution or rehabilitation. The United States is attempting to change Cubas behavior through economic sanctions. The U.S. government is withholding its economic resources until such time as Cuba changes its policies and allows democratic rule in Cuba. Sanctions have been imposed before and Cubas behavior has continued. What use are ineffective sanctions? Sanctions can be seen as a purely symbolic gesture. They can be imposed by a state as a gesture of disapproval for another states behavior. In this mind-set, the importance of the sanction is not if it actually affected behavior, but that it demonstrated resolve or commitment to a particular goal. In a way, this is what is happening with Cuba and the United States. The economic sanctions against Cuba have been ineffective. They have pushed Cuba away from dependence on the United States to strengthening trade ties with Europe. The sanctions do show American resolve to implement some kind of change in Cuba, and they show the American people that something is being done. However, the sanctions are performing another function. They are undermining American goals with respect to Cuba. One of the American goals, as put down in the text of the Helms-Burton Act, is to promote democracy and remove the Castro regime from power. This is a failure because Castro is using the sanctions to stay in power. The sanctions cause Cuba to make and maintain strong ties with Europe and other nations. These ties increase economic stability in Cuba, which in turn, help Castro stay in power. There is yet another side to the sanctions. If they were to be effective, it might cause an even bigger problem than the U.S. wants to handle. If the sanctions work, and foreign investments fall in Cuba, the economy would fall. A falling economy could place enough pressure to oust Castro, but he could very well take the country down with him. 21 Cuba would be even more unstable than it is now, and who knows what the effect of that would be. Threat perceptions have created the Helms-Burton Act and that Act has created an international controversy. One question that still remains completely unanswered is why Cuba is still considered a threat. With all the problems arising from the United States actions with regard to a threatening Cuba, why continue to see Cuba as a threat? Events in Cuba suggest that the United States look into changing its policy towards Cuba. Biases need to be taken out of the picture and the situation needs to be seen more objectively. Does the destruction of civilian air-crafts really constitute a threat to national security? It does if the action is perceived as an act of terrorism. The action was an act of terrorism, but there were reasons for it. Castro can use nation security concerns for shooting down the planes the same way Clinton can use national security to justify the sanctions to the international community. The airplanes crossed into Cuban airspace, so Cuba was only protecting itself. Aside from that, Cuba has not participated in any acts of terrorism. Cuba no longer supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world. In earlier years, the Castro regime prided significant levels of military training, weapons, finding, and guidance to leftist extremists worldwide. 22 Cuba no longer can afford to fund a worldwide communist take-over. The principal supporter, the Soviet Union, no longer exists. Most of the communist countries in the world have fallen or pacified. The Cold War is over. If the U.S. can change its perceptions of Russia and the nations that made up the Soviet Union, why not Cuba, too? In addition, the United States cannot say that human rights violations are of such importance that sanctions must be maintained. The U.S. has ignored human rights violations when it suits their purposes. A perfect example of this is China. China has committed many human rights violations, including opening fire with tanks on students demonstrating for democracy. The United States joined the international community in condemning that action, but China retained their most favorite nation status. It appears that human rights are used when it is convenient to use them. Sanctions could possibly serve another purpose for the American government. If the government in Cuba should fall, Helms-Burton provides for a United States supported transition government. 23 The chaos would be exactly what the United States needed to gain a foothold in Cuba. Their presence would ensure a government sympathetic to the United States and as democratic as it needed be to ensure American policy. This purpose is pure conjecture, but there does seem to be some basis for it. After all, Castro has claimed for years that he is protecting Cuba from the imperialist goals of the United States. Americas Cuba policy is a strange blend of perceptions, biases, posturing, and policy. History plays a huge role, as does domestic politics. There is reason for the United States to see Cuba as a threat. However, that time has past. Cuba cannot afford to continue in terrorist activities far from the island. It cannot afford to support the expense of deporting communism to the rest of the world. Sanctions against Cuba could bring down the government faster than anyone is ready for, and it has already created an international controversy. It is true that Castro is a dictator and that he might not be the best leader for Cuba. However, Castro is aging and the world might not have to wait much longer for the Castro regime to fall. There is a time to perceive a particular state as a threat, and there is a time to change policy with changing times. The time for change with respect to Cuba has arrived. There is no reason for retribution any longer. Cuba should be welcomed into the family of nations to make the transition when Castros regime finally falls all the easier for everyone.