U.S.' 'HALFHEARTED' MOVES ON CUBA AND ONGOING EMBARGO

GARNER FAINT PRAISE, HEAVY CRITICISM

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CUBA: "Trade Associations Reject U.S. Initiative"

Havana Tele Rebelde and Cubavision Networks aired this report on NTV (1/19): "The Cuban Journalists Union echoed the dismay brought about by the announcement of a supposed easing of conditions of the U.S. criminal blockade against Cuba by stating, 'We firmly reject the usual, disguised poison which the announced measures represent. Among these measures is the support and encouragement given to those who are trying to re-establish the corrupt press, which was buried forever by revolutionary Cuba. Today, this type of press is prevalent in the United States. More than ever before, they are devoted to consumerism, frivolities, society rumors and sex scandals. The anti-Cuban campaigns have failed and this new attempt is proof that the imperialists do not have valid resources to convince our people and the world. Cuba's enemies cannot count on us in any way to take part in this new insult towards the Cuban people's dignity.' Another association that has rejected the U.S. measures is the Cuban Advertisers Association and its affiliates. In their note, they state that 'Cuban professionals involved in the advertising and publicity sector...are educated in the revolution's principles and ideology. We are well aware that we cannot make concessions to any kind to imperialism.'... The Cuban Economists Association also considers the [U.S. measures] an insult to the Cuban people's dignity [and believes] that they are 'deliberately trying to shatter our nation's unity. We are committed to the Cuban revolution's history and achievements.'"

"World Community Rejects U.S. Trial Balloon"

Havana Radio's "Evening Information Review" had this station editorial, which commented on President of the Cuban Parliament Ricardo Alarcon's response to the announced U.S. measures (1/12): "In his appearance on Cuban television last Friday to explain the official Cuban position on the new measures announced by the White House, Ricardo Alarcon voiced his skepticism that the apparent change of attitude from U.S. leaders may have a truly positive effect on bilateral relations.... [Alarcon] referred, in a detailed and careful manner, to each of the aspects of the new set of U.S. measures regarding Cuba, and the conclusion leads to the adoption of a rather skeptical attitude by Cuban authorities. Many people, inside and outside of Cuba, were surprised by the fact that the revolutionary government of Cuba did not react immediately to Clinton's announcement.... [In the end] the proposal was kindly rejected. [However], everything that Washington--which has waged a true political and economic war on Cuba for 40 years--does or proposes, must be examined like a bacteria slide under a microscope. This maneuver did not take anyone by surprise, but it is something that could not be answered without meditation. This small Caribbean country has faced for years the biggest political, military and economic power of all times and must weigh things very seriously. The two moments of apparent change toward Cuba from Washington, mid-last year and on January 5, had the same defects: hesitation at the moment of implementing the announced measures, and then little consistency in the implementation. This [latest initiative] appears to be a trial balloon [floated by the United States] to see what happens in Havana--not risking too much, while trying to improve somehow its seriously deteriorated image because of its anti-Cuban policy.... The United States has not found support but rather widespread rejection from the world community."

ARGENTINA: "Another Step Towards A 'Post-Castro' Era"

Elisabetta Pique, international columnist for daily-of-record La Nacion, opined (1/6): "When Clinton announced a new opening toward Cuba, he made it very clear that the economic embargo on Castro's island is still on....

"He also pointed out that the measures are aimed at 'helping the Cuban people without strengthening their government.' But it would be very naive to think that this new move is only for 'humanitarian' reasons. It is well known that Washington has political and economic interests in one of the world's last Communist bastions.... Even though the Cuban issue has always been a pain in the neck for the State Department, the disappearance of the Soviet Union...led to a change in Washington's position, allowing for flexible relations based on a greater exchange of ideas and persons.... Some recent events [such as the pope's visit], nevertheless, paved the way for the U.S. decision...to modify...its position. According to some analysts, it is obvious that Washington's major goal in this new opening is to 'promote a peaceful and democratic transition,' through culture and ideas, but, above all, through an injection of dollars. In this way, and taking baby steps, a McDonald's along the waterfront does not seem now as unbelievable as before."

BRAZIL: "A Door Cracked Open"

Liberal, national Jornal do Brasil (1/11) carried this editorial which praised Clinton's new opening to Cuba as a good start, noting that he prefers to make major political moves in small increments: "With enemies like Castro's Cuba, the United States can sleep easy: capitalism, democracy and the American way of life stand in no danger. The economic embargo imposed by the USG [once] made sense...[as] a geopolitical injunction. Forty years later, it is no more than a relic of the Cold War, to which American rancor devotes too much importance. This week, Clinton announced measures which considerably soften the restrictions. This is a recognition--late but welcome--that the situation has changed radically. Clinton could have taken a bigger step and shortened the suffering of the Cuban people by giving in to pressure to set up a bipartisan commission charged with re-evaluating the embargo. Being a president of cautious ways...he opted for prudence. But his decision made it clear that American intransigence is already being re-examined."

"Less Rigid Toward Cuba"

Center-right O Estado de S. Paulo observed (1/8): "Clinton is easing economic pressures on Cuba, without lifting embargo. Clinton's political goal is...to gradually strengthen and prepare the role of community organizations for the political transition that will eventually come with the unavoidable collapse of the Castroist regime, either resulting from Fidel's death or social pressures from the economic crisis.... President Clinton does not have the political support to challenge anti-Castroist groups and change the policy adopted 36 years ago...and, therefore, he remains in the middle of the road. He does not propose the end of the embargo, but adopts a measure to ease Cuba's isolation.... With the measures he has just taken, Clinton wants to encourage and foster the circulation of ideas among the people who are so dependent on the Cuban state--and this is the type of democratic contagion that dictatorships fear most."

"Embargo And Anachronisms"

Liberal Folha de S. Paulo had this editorial (1/7): "This slight lifting of the embargo reveals the co-existence of two anachronisms. The first is of the Communist regime, which dictator Fidel Castro recently reiterated that he will preserve at any cost. The second is the economic embargo itself which is not closer to its stated goal after four decades.... The concrete effects of the Clinton administration's initiative are perhaps as small as the ephemeral publicity it provoked.... The tie between the two anachronisms remains--with the Communist regime submitting the Cuban population to a chronic situation of material shortage, and the embargo not reaching its goal of advancing democracy."

"Embargo For What?"

Independent Jornal da Tarde argued (1/7): "Fidel Castro's power has remained untouchable despite the misery of the Cuban people and the relentless persecution of adversaries. He has engendered a dictatorship that can only be dismounted after his death. The military uniform has made him a pathetic figure in international meetings. And the media, that in the past devoted headlines to him, says today that his 'revolution' is a farce. However, he continues firmly in power and it is a mistake to think that he could be overthrown. Therefore, the partial suspension of the economic embargo on Cuba might already have been decided a long time ago by the USG. Washington would be the one to gain should it decide to lift all sanctions, since such a decision would remove one of the problems from its jammed international agenda.... The embargo today is innocuous and does not contribute to the re-establishment of democracy in Cuba. Democracy will come, as a natural political development when Fidel dies."

BARBADOS: "Showing Support For Cuba"

The pro-government Bridgetown Nation commented (1/7): "President Clinton seems to be either unable or unwilling, or both, to make a constructive move in two areas of much importance to the Caribbean [bananas and Cuba]." The paper called the new measures "no more than welcomed palliatives" and concluded, "Clinton can at least show some courage and capacity for new ideas on ending the embargo that has caused such tremendous suffering for the Cuba people, yet hasn't shaken the foundation of support for the government of Castro."

"Cuban Relief"

The populist Barbados Advocate held (1/7): "The widespread effects of the problems [caused by the embargo] may be no more a factor in the new U.S. measures to ease social conditions in Cuba, than the disastrous state of U.S. domestic politics.... In this latest foreign policy initiative, [Clinton] could well be figuring in that important element of magnanimity by which many a national leader constructs or repairs statesmanship. It is...an American tradition."

COLOMBIA: "Blockade Serves As Pretext And Cause For Regime"

Bogota's liberal El Espectador had this editorial (1/9): "Once again, the government of Bill Clinton has rejected the proposals being made for an in-depth change in his country's policy toward Cuba.... The goals of U.S. policy have a justification: It is desirable that Cuba moves towards a democratic government, as has been the case of almost all of the world's political systems and as has been the latest trend in Latin America. However...in addition to being questionable in terms of its international legal basis...the long-lasting intervention from the North has proven to be ineffective. As time goes by, the blockade has turned into both a pretext and a cause used by Cuba's political regime to consolidate its power. The country's residents believe that the embargo is the cause of the economic crisis and the shortage of basic goods. The historical rational [for the U.S. attitude] has been gradually eroded. No longer can anyone argue that Cuba poses a threat to U.S. security. The questionable embargo must be revised and Cuba should be allowed to seek change as a result of an autonomous evolution not foreign intervention."

El SALVADOR: "If Cuba Pays, Cuba Gets"

San Salvador's rightist El Diario de Hoy observed (1/7): "Oh, how Castro owes the United States, not only, of course, for their congeniality in greeting the uprising against Batista's corrupt regime, but also because the former anti-Castro movement--adding to the grave mistakes made by Washington's foreign policy--has succeeded in penalizing the Cubans and keeping Castro in power for four decades.

"The embargo and other actions have injected the patriotic dimension of the Castro regime with a degree of anti-Northism...that toasts the Cuban battles for independence. Without the North American embargo, the Castro movement would not have lasted so long. That the U.S. policy against Cuba has been a mistake is openly recognized every day by American politicians, exiled Cubans, and former secretaries of state such as Mr. Kissinger. The death of Mas Canosa in 1997 left lobbyists feeling furiously anti-Castro and defending the embargo at all costs, without a leader in Miami or Washington."

JAMAICA: "Costs Of Embargo Enormous, Clinton's Actions Negligible"

An editorial in the business-oriented, centrist Daily Observer held (1/9): "This week, the U.S. president announced a series of measures to further relax the U.S....trade embargo against Cuba. We do not dismiss the benefits that these measures can bring.... But in the overall context of U.S.-Cuba relations, Mr. Clinton's actions are negligible. For the bottom line is that...there is no real trade between the United States and Cuba.... Moreover, the Americans even pretend to have the right of extra-territorial application of their law...under the notorious Helms-Burton legislation.... Washington's policy toward Havana has gone beyond America's position against left-wing radicalism.... America's behavior toward Cuba is a parody of a family feud, where people go on fighting long after anyone remembers what caused the quarrel in the first place--except, perhaps, the Cuban Americans who maintain their peeve against Castro, and those on the American right for whom just the name Castro conjures images of anything antithetical to U.S. interests. The tragedy is the terrible cost to all sides of...what essentially has been a failed policy.... There has been an economic cost to the United States too, but the major cost to Washington is in its moral position.... The measure of the failure of this policy is the number of world leaders who have trekked to Havana in recent years and who have had Castro in their capitals. For the United States to fail to review its policy...is to do exactly what it accuses Castro of--leadership by dogma and hubris rather than strategic interest."

MEXICO: "The Paradoxical Effect Of The U.S. Embargo"

Commentator Sergio Sarmiento observed in Guadalajara's independent Mural (1/12): "It might be true that Fidel enjoys a great popularity in Cuba; it would be difficult not to after 40 years of training and prohibiting dissident voices. But while 11 million Cubans live on the island, three million have chosen exile for ideological and economic reasons. This is a thermometer of dissatisfaction with his regime, which cannot be freely expressed in Cuba.... The U. S. economic embargo, paradoxically, has bolstered the Cuban regime. It is not only the easiest official excuse for all the privations the Cubans suffer, after being deprived of the generous Soviet assistance, but a powerful encouragement for unity against the foreign enemy. The communist regimes in East Europe saw their ideological bases weakened by the proliferation of photocopiers, computers, televisions, and radios that brought citizens the dream of discretionary consumption. But Washington has become allied with Castro in a voluntary plan to isolate Cubans from temptations and influences by the world outside. The great question in the Cuban case is not if the Castroist regime is going to end, but when and under what circumstances will it be. For the benefit of the Cubans, the ideal thing would be a pacific transition to a democratic regime that would grant individual liberties to Cubans and create more prosperity without losing the revolutionary benefits."

PERU: "Castro Must Go"

Analyst Alejandro Deustua had this column in pro-government Expreso (1/13): "As if it were something to celebrate, some in the press are covering the 40th anniversary of Castro's rise to power. Has the 'revolution' finally overcome the bloody and outspoken image of its leader? Or has it wrapped itself in new forms of freedom without the people realizing the change? Or perhaps someone has found a sign of substantial changes indicating that the pope's visit was not a simple propaganda carnival for the Caribbean dictator? None of the above.

"The United States is wrong simply to broaden its communication with Cuban society instead of lifting the embargo, which is allegedly aimed at the Cuban government. By maintaining the embargo, the United States will not force any change on the island, but rather will increase the isolation of U.S. policy (other countries are investing in Cuba) and will continue giving Castro the excuse he needs to justify crime and isolationism as a form of government.... Castro must retire now voluntarily and peacefully, for the world's and his country's sake."

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "What Follows Fidel?"

The independent weekly Economist observed from Havana (1/2): "On January 1, Cubans celebrated not only the beginning of 1999, but the 40th anniversary of Fidel Castro's revolution. There does not seem much to celebrate. The grand promises of the past 40 years are in tatters. In some ways, Cuba seems worse off in 1999 than it was in 1959.... 40 years of being dominated by one loquacious, erratic man has left Cubans with a ruined economy, disintegrating public services and an uncertain future. With no plausible political heirs in sight, no credible opposition and an exile community itching not only for return, but revenge, Cubans are right to fear chaos or even civil war after Castro goes. Not much of a legacy, nor much to celebrate."

FRANCE: "Washington Gears Up For Post-Castro Era"

Right-of-center Les Echos opined (1/6): "Washington responded yesterday to the triumphant speech by Fidel Castro--who had celebrated the 40th anniversary of his regime three days previously--with an easing of its economic blockade on Cuba. The U.S. measures...remain very modest: the introduction of direct postal services, a larger number of charter links, and cultural and sports events. However, [this] baseball diplomacy...marks a fresh U.S. effort not to lock itself into an embargo policy that has proven detrimental to its own interests. The pope's visit by to Cuba...just under a year ago opened up a breach into which several of the U.S.' competitors have plunged.... We are still a long way away from normal relations being established, and the ideological competition is set to continue. Indeed, only the U.S. Congress has the power to put an end to this tropical relic of the Cold War. However, after 37 years of an embargo that has failed to topple the Cuban leader, the climate between Washington and Havana is becoming less tense with an eye to the post-Castro era, which, unless due preparations are made, would in all likelihood be to everyone's benefit except the Americans."

GERMANY: "Finally Some Movement"

Joachim Hoenig wrote in business Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf (1/7): "The latest U.S. decisions indicate no more than marginal changes. But something is moving in Washington. Since the death of the powerful exiled Cuban, Mas Canosa, the anti-Castro movement in Florida has lost political clout in the power center in Washington. The second and third generations of Cuban-Americans are no longer attracted by the island of their fathers, since they have become part of the multi-cultural U.S. society. President Clinton...is now carefully maneuvering between the hardliners. He is well-advised in starting only with humanitarian measures towards Cuba. It is too early to speak now of an end to the ice age, but a thaw is coming. In Europe, where social democratic governments are now mostly at the helm, Clinton will have full support."

"Halfheartedness Instead Of A Change Of Course"

Carl Goerdeler had this to say in centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn (1/6): "Washington has announced a relaxation of the economic blockade on Cuba.... The U.S. embargo policy towards the island is as schizophrenic as Fidel Castro's verbal radicalism. For more than three decades, the U.S. policy has totally missed its aims.

"Instead of forcing Fidel Castro to his knees, it offered him the pretext to present himself as a brave David fighting the North American Goliath. The relaxations announced by Washington are halfhearted. A total suspension of the embargo is necessary. Castro could then feel himself the 'winner,' but his regime would go down."

"Halfhearted"

Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin asked (1/6): "Has the United States changed its mind? Washington wants to relax the embargo...but, at the same time, the United States has made it clear that it does not intend to normalize political relations. What then is the purpose of this move? It is a fact that there is no majority in the United States for a totally new policy towards Cuba. The attempt to strengthen practical assistance for Cuba's people cannot obscure one fact: Washington is not acting reasonably but only halfheartedly.... If the United States really had acted reasonably, a policy of rapprochement would have initiated a change and could have simultaneously deprived Castro of his role as martyr.... The U.S. embargo policy, which has lasted for almost 40 years and even intensified with the Helms-Burton Act, has failed."

"Creeping Change In Policy Toward Cuba"

Maritta Tkalec penned this piece in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (1/6): "The change in the (U.S.) policy toward Cuba has begun. It was promoted by the pope, who called the sanctions 'unfair and ethically unacceptable,' and by 152 states which called for the end of sanctions in the UN General Assembly. And it was promoted by former Republican secretaries of state Kissinger, Shultz, and Eagleburger.... Constructive engagement is a policy which worked between East and West. It began with more telephone lines and exchanges of packages, followed by sports and science accords.... Change is taking place in small steps."

"A Bit Of Normalization"

Bert Hoffmann argued in left-of-center Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (1/6): "This policy is a true Clinton policy. It is Clinton's style just like smoking marijuana without inhaling it.... To the degree that Fidel Castro is a sacrosanct symbol for the left-wing camp, the embargo on Cuba is a sacrosanct part for the right wing in the United States. To question these dogmas was something Clinton shied away from when he rejected setting up bipartisan commission. Instead, Secretary Albright only announced minor steps.... The rejection of such a commission serves to tranquilize Cuban hardliners living in exile into accepting these mini-steps.... Nevertheless, these measures may be an indication that U.S. policy is moving a little bit away from the tough policy of the exiled Cuban lobby (in the United States)."

ITALY: "Castro Slams Door Against USA"

Roberto Livi observed in Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (1/10): "Havana completely rejected the White House's new plan.... The (rejection) by the Cuban government aims to protect Havana's ongoing alliance with the Church, preventing the United States from trying to insinuate itself.... Clinton's recently announced opening will increase the remittance of dollars forwarded to Cuba by its political refugees.... The control of these channels of donations--which the U.S. administration would prefer to flow only to Christian institutions--would deprive the Cuban state of control over them. In addition, it could lead the regime toward a collision course with the Church, stopping an alliance that was forged following the papal visit."

"Clinton Prefers Small Steps"

An editorial in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica observed (1/7): "For months there has been a race by several governments (including Italy's) to establish increasingly closer relations with a regime which continues to arrest anybody who dares express the slightest criticism.

"Enthusiasm has infected even a few former American 'hawks' (among whom are Henry Kissinger and other former secretaries of state) who, months ago, asked Clinton to create a committee to review the embargo against Cuba. But Clinton won't go along. He prefers a policy of small...steps. To begin, a friendly baseball game in Havana between a Baltimore team and the Cuban national team."

"U.S. Policy's Lack Of Substance Confirmed"

Massimo Cavallini wrote from Washington in PDS (leading government party) L'Unita' (1/6): "Somebody has already called it 'baseball diplomacy.' But it is very unlikely that the modest changes...to the rules governing the embargo on Cuba may rise to the historic level of the U.S. openings towards China in the early '70s. Of the measures solemnly announced by Secretary Albright, only the following will go down in history books: a couple of 'historic' baseball games. So much for the appeals of those--Democrats and Republicans--who had urged a 'thorough updating' of U.S.-Cuban relations.... Clinton yesterday confirmed the extreme shyness and the basic lack of substance of his Cuba policy, limiting himself to a few insignificant changes, via presidential decree, of the Helms-Burton law."

"A Timid Opening"

Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (1/5) had this piece by Alberto Romagnoli: "With China the United States resorted to ping-pong, in the case of Cuba it may be the turn of baseball. The Clinton administration seems determined to do something to improve relations with the neighboring enemy island. Not with the Cuban government, of course, but at least with the Cuban people.... 'Pope Effect'? 'Europe Effect'? Who knows. More likely, this timid opening is simply political calculation, and a means for the United States to further demonize Castro. But, after 37 years of embargo, it still creates a sensation."

BELGIUM: "If Embargo Is Lifted, Regime Will Collapse"

Philippe Berkenbaum remarked in independent Le Soir (1/20): "Even the average Cuban is no longer a dupe. 'The embargo is an excellent means for the regime to stay in place,' a young architect said, 'using the slogan: let us stand up to American imperialism, which inflicts so much suffering upon us! But if the embargo is lifted, Castro will collapse.' This opinion is clearly shared by many Cubans."

"Castro's Escape Weapons"

Chief commentator Luc Van der Kelen asserted in conservative Het Laatste Nieuws (1/15): "Now that the Americans can no longer invoke the Russian danger, Castro is gradually escaping from the 37-year-old U.S. trade boycott. He does not need Soviet missiles to do that: The dollar, tourism and, soon, the euro are his weapons. The pope's visit, too, must not be underestimated. Today, Castro's message sounds like a cry for freedom against America...which plays the role of heartless suppressor of Cuba. The American giant is waging a war against minute Cuba without shooting. Indeed, that is what the boycott is in reality. The boycott is a dirty war, not because it hurts the regime, but because it brings hunger and poverty to an entire nation. For too long has the world tolerated a superpower's effort to destroy the right of self-determination of a country. The fact of the matter is that it is as hopeless a policy as Vietnam was in its time. Without the pressure of the boycott, Cuba would have evolved much more rapidly in the direction of European social democracy. That is why it is good and just that Belgium is taking the lead today in the liberation of the Cubans from the grip of a nation which is attempting, no matter what the cost may be, to strangle them economically."

"Belgium In Havana's Good Book"

Latin American affairs writer Francis Van den Berghe observed in independent Catholic De Standaard added (1/11): "Belgium is in Havana's good book: Not only because it rejects, as a small country, America's boycott of Cuba, but also because Belgian NGOs have always been very active in Cuba. Belgium's occasional aid is also very much appreciated. And when there is criticism on (respect for) human rights and democracy from Belgium, it is taken more seriously than when it comes from Washington."

HUNGARY: "Castro Alone"

Foreign affairs writer Edit Zsigovits opined in center-right Magyar Nemzet (1/6): "Castro has reinforced the idea that, though older, his uniform, mindset and dreams are still the same. The developing countries, and not only the Latin Americans, see him a hero, who dared to go against the 'big aggressor,' the United States. Yet...surprise, the United States has announced that it will considerably lift the embargo against Cuba. Castro, the big bull of the 20th century, as many say, has been left alone on his own reservation."

SPAIN: "Embargo Has Kept Castro Afloat"

Leading, liberal El Pais had this analysis (1/6): "The U.S. embargo against Cuba is one of the key factors keeping Castro in power, as it serves as an explanation for the fall of the economy and justifies the suppression of Cubans' civil liberties. If there is no food, the regime attributes it to the embargo; if gasoline is needed for transportation, the culprit is the embargo.... But the embargo exists only on paper, since the rest of the world, from Spain to Canada, is more than willing to sell Castro anything.... Additionally, the embargo is an excuse for Castro to suppress liberties and rights that are law in other countries.... Without the embargo, Castro would not have lasted 40 years."

EAST ASIA

JAPAN: "U.S. Eases Embargo Against Cuba"

Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri's Washington correspondent Hayashi wrote (1/6): "President Clinton announced Tuesday an easing of U.S. trade and commerce restrictions against Cuba allowing, among other things, direct postal service. Ever since the Cuban revolution, the United States has tried to contain the Castro regime. The relaxation of a four-decade trade embargo against Cuba is expected to become substantial. A high-ranking USG official stressed the loosening of trade restrictions is not intended to improve U.S. ties with the Castro government. However, there is a possibility that the measures will accelerate moves toward a much-debated review of U.S. policy toward Cuba."

CHINA: "Olive Branch Is An Empty Move"

Wang Hui commented in official English language China Daily (1/13): "Although Havana could be criticized for failing to accept Washington's goodwill gesture, the reaction is understandable. There is no substantial change in the White House Cuba policy. Washington's new offer only adjusts its decades-old embargo policy. Washington retains its obstinate anti-Cuba policy, only more subtly. If the United States really wants to improve its relations with Cuba, its should proceed with a more sincere and pragmatic approach."

"Sincerity Required To Improve Relationship"

Xu Zhihong declared in official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao,1/12): "America's lack of sincerity in improving the overall relationship with Cuba is evidenced by its stubborn refusal to give up the sanctions and blockade imposed on the Cuban people. Cuba's rejection of the American's recent gesture to improve the relationship was a reasonable reaction. Resorting to sanctions, blockades or even force can do nothing to help resolve disputes between countries. It is now time to abandon such practices. Just as a saying goes: 'Whoever starts the trouble should end it.' Only when the United States changes its hostile policy and totally removes sanctions will the bilateral relationship substantially improve."

"U.S. Readjusts Cuba Policy"

Liu Ban commented in official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao) (1/11): "The notorious Helms-Burton Act now exists in name only. Domestic and international pressure forced the United States to readjust its Cuba policy.... By easing some restrictions on Cuba, the United States hopes that changes within Cuba will occur. Through soft tactics of non-governmental communication and engagement, the United States hopes the ongoing social system in Cuba may change. But there still seems to be a long way to go before genuine improvement in the bilateral relationship."

PHILIPPINES: "U.S. Decides To Meet Castro Halfway"

Nelson Navarro remarked in his column in the independent Manila Standard (1/18): "Since Castro won't give up and couldn't be licked, the U.S. government has decided to meet the long-running Cuban revolution halfway. Or so the Americans want to make it appear, by announcing the recent relaxation of the 37-year embargo against the Castro regime.... Neither the Clinton administration (n)or the Cuban authorities are trying to make a big deal of what are essentially incremental changes in bilateral relations. To be sure, Cuba stands to benefit from more infusion of hard currency and increased tourist traffic between the two neighboring but long-estranged countries.... But the formal end to American embargo does not appear to be immediately forthcoming. Just as seemingly remote is any glimmer of hope that Castro is about to depart voluntarily from power anytime soon.... The official U.S. hope is that increasing ties short of the lifting of the embargo will ultimately benefit the cause of Cuban democracy.... For the Cubans, more contact and financial assistance from America can only be better than past isolation and the so far pitiful flows of money and investments."

THAILAND: "Cuban Economic Embargo Outdated"

The independent, English language Nation had this lead editorial (1/10): "Thirty years of defiance should have taught Washington that, no matter how hard the embargo made life for Cubans, it was never likely to lead to a popular revolt against Fidel Castro's government. Since the end of the Cold War, the only effect the embargo has had is to allow Canadian and European companies to move in and seek out the best deals in Cuba, much to the frustration of their American rivals.... Clinton should have gone further, such as endorsing the establishment of a bipartisan committee to review Cuban policy that would have put reform of Cuban policy on a faster track.... As soft and timid as the overture was from Washington, it is now President Castro's turn to respond with a gesture of goodwill to the United States. Of course, he could start by declaring an amnesty for political prisoners.... The economic embargo is outdated and ineffective. It should be lifted promptly. If not by Clinton, then by Congress."

SOUTH ASIA

SRI LANKA: "Castro: The Defiant One"

Mervyn de Silva argued in the popular, independent/pro-opposition weekly Sunday Times (1/10): "On Tuesday, Washington announced it would ease some restrictions.... Much more was expected when Mr. Clinton was re-elected. But Mr. Clinton has more urgent tasks on his personal agenda. A closer Castro-Clinton "bhai-bhai" (brotherly) understanding will have to wait, what with impeachment as item no. 1 on the Senate agenda. All the anti-Castro policies--from economic blockade to isolation and assassination plots--have failed. A Nobel Peace Prize for Fidel Castro? Do I see a hand go up? Meanwhile, Castro builds socialism in one country, defying the United States and its policy to isolate him."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

1/22/99

# # #