Author: Kellie Bartoli

As Americans, we enjoy our freedom to do anything we may choose. Anything, that is except travel to Cuba.

Since 1963, the United States has followed a strict travel ban with Cuba – the only country that Americans are forbidden from visiting. Earlier this month, however, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and eight co-sponsors introduced to Congress H.R.874, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

By lifting the 46-year sanction, the bill aims to restore the travel rights of Cuban refugees living in the U.S. and enable unrestricted American travel to Cuba, except during times of war and “imminent danger to the public health or physical safety.”

Despite growing popularity, the bill faces a tough crowd. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Miami), a longtime advocate of the Cuban sanctions, says similar acts are often proposed, and “every year embargo supporters kill [them] before they get any traction. …While we recognize that these are fights take place, we have great confidence that we’ll defeat them.”

The strongest argument against the measure is the belief that American tourism will breathe money into the Castro regime.

According to Humberto Fontova, a Cuban exile who has since penned two books about the island, at least 2 million tourists have visited Cuba each year since 1994, creating a $2 billion cash flow, which “is only going to increase now with Americans going to Cuba.”  

If the measure passes the House, President Obama will almost certainly sign it into law; throughout his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to change the travel ban. At a Cuban Independence Day event in Miami, he said, “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad.’ …We’ve been engaged in a failed policy with Cuba for the last 50 years. And we need to change it.” Obama later went on to vow unrestricted travel and financial rights for Cuban-Americans.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act will be a good test of Obama’s pledge. In addition to lifting travel sanctions, the new bill loosens the tight strings pulled by President George W. Bush, who placed even more stringent restrictions on American-Cuban relations.

Under the Clinton administration, for example, Cuban-Americans were allowed to visit the island once a year and send quarterly payments of up to $3,000 to their families. In 2004, Bush enacted stronger limitations: Cuban-Americans could only visit family once every three weeks for 14-day intervals, “family” was defined as parents, spouses, children and siblings – not friends or other family members, travel spending was capped at $50 per day, and cash remittances were maximized at $300 every three months and could only be sent to immediate family.

The new bill, however, calls for a $170-per day travel allowance, the ability for Cuban-Americans to visit relatives once a year and stay as long as they want, and eliminates a cap on remittance.

While the travel ban has been enforced for nearly 50 years, the proposal is moving much more rapidly. It was initially introduced to Congress on Feb. 4, and the House plans to vote as early as Wednesday. It is to be reviewed by the Senate at the beginning of next week. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Perhaps the most troubling series of advancements that have taken place between Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba are found within this last overview of policy developments. The area of military agreements and coordinated defense and suspected terrorist activity are off the charts when compared to the sheer lack of awareness that is found among the American public. Most of the quotes found throughout this last part of coverage are presented in a way to largely allow readers to draw their own conclusions and in the lieu of government transparency, and to being to understand the magnitude of developments that will begin to start shaping significant parts of US foreign policy over the next decade or so. If you have not been able to read the first parts of this series, the first on nuclear proliferation while the second on trade, please follow the previous links to help get a more complete picture.

The most drastic developments within the veiled trio began to take place in 2007, after years of policy-forming precedents had been sent by a more bilateral-oriented approach. In October of 2007, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was quoted responding to questions about Iranian-Venezuelan relations that “I think [there is] an emerging threat and challenge to the West, which is the export of ideology that we see among Islamist extremists in the Middle East from Iran, and the marriage of that with others who, perhaps for their own reasons, have strong anti-American views or who simply exploit anti-Americanism as a way of promoting their own ideological or power agendas…”  Chertoff’s comments were made around the time he began expressing sharp criticism directed at Iran for increasing western hemisphere activity. The gravity of the exportation of Iranian terrorists to Venezuela is impactful when realizing that Iran and Venezuela truly are military partners with firm establishments in place.

To date, “Venezuela has concluded nearly 200 bilateral agreements with Iran on military cooperation, the sharing of intelligence, expanding financial cooperation, and initiating cultural exchanges, among others.” Furthermore, “ In February 2008, a United States Federal law-enforcement official shared, We’ve known for some time that Islamic extremists groups were gaining momentum and exploiting the region … Iran is no exception now with Cuba and Venezuela, the door is open.” Both Iran and Venezuela work incredibly hard to ensure that the door that Cuba provides, only 100 miles from Key West, making it the most dangerously close enemy the United States has. Cuba understands the leverage it holds, and the geographic importance it plays within the veiled trio.

The quotes found in this post largely can be found cited from research presented in Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”. The bill outlines the urgency that the average US citizen has not realized yet, and calls for increased deterrents and communication to have the US become more involved within the trio’s affairs. One of the most troubling quotes sited as justification for her bill date back “In April 2008, (when) for the fourth year in a row, the Department of State’s Annual Country Report on Terrorism stated that the Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of (several Latin American terrorist groups) and maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.”

This 3 part series of brief coverage on Iranian/Venezuelan/Cuban coordination is the only beginning of the breadth and depth of developments that have taken place in recent years that should be of utmost importance to US foreign policy. To begin to jump into this troubling part of US concern, follow these links to review H.R.7068, Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s plan that while not necessarily outlining the optimal solution, does point to some of the concerning developments that should be garnering much more attention in the United States in terms of foreign policy focus priorities.

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite the fact that the term “trade” sounds extremely vague when compared to “nuclear proliferation” the impacts of trade to the extent that Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been conducting show significant developments on the part of the veiled trio. The amount of trade agreements and overall activity between the three nations has stepped up considerably over the past few years, with strange coincidences (?) of coordinated activity with Russia (such as Russia deploying ships to Hugo’s coast with nuclear technologies possibly for change right before the US signed a NPT-violating treaty with India).

The newest trade alliances and bilateral trade agreements include the increasing relations and activity with the Iran-Cuba joint Economic, Scientific, and Technical Cooperation Commission. The last major economic agreement was signed between the 2 countries in 2006 and helped pave the way for the surge in recent trade activity. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency in 2007 Iran and Cuba set up a joint shipping company known as the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). IRISL had the original goal of allowing Venezuela to access Iranian commodities such as construction and agriculture machinery and Cuba to purchase Iranian transport wagons. The IRISL was matched with a reportedly $200 million loan from Iran to Cuba. Again, we see unity between the trio.  In August of 2007 Iranian Deputy Commerce Minister Mehdi Ghazanfari reportedly signed two protocols of trade with Cuba and Venezuela, decreasing overall tariffs aiming, among other things, to increase the already $60 million in Iranian exports to Venezuela. The statistics on Cuba are a little bit harder to locate.

2007 would continue to be a busy year for major developments that should have made US headlines much easier than they did. Months later Chavez established standard civilian airline flights with Venezuela and “designated sponsors”, which include Syria and not surprisingly, Iran. In Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”, Iran is referenced a surprisingly 24 times within the 45 page bill that only references 2 middle eastern countries (the only other country was Syria, mentioned only once). The move was largely seen by US Defense officials as a more convenient, much more blatant way for Iran to utilize the potential use its close relationship with Venezuela to “…facilitate the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons into the Western Hemisphere through terrorist proxy groups.”

The more you look into the affairs the easier it is to find American-based justification for bills such as Ros-Lehtinen’s when considering how much control the US has positioned itself to have in many parts of the world after World War II. These include many agreements shielded largely under military agreements such as NATO and the economic agreements the US found itself in eastern Asia with countries that eventually became some of the countries’ largest trade partners, including South Korea and Japan. In a more current foreign policy spotlight, as President Bush continues to preach democracy and capitalism as vehicles for freedom and unrestricted markets around the world (even to the point of imposing force), the US has not been successful in decreasing the narcotics and illicit drug trade that is often paired with terrorist lingo on the news.

“A 2007 Drug Enforcement Administration report linked nearly half of foreign terrorist organizations around the world today to narcotics trade, underscoring the fact that the fight against terrorism must also include a corresponding fight against illicit drugs.” Similar reports point towards coordination in the arms trade between the 3 nations, sighting that in May 2008, the Department of State, for the third year in a row, that Venezuela has violated the Arms Export Control Act and thereby criticized for not cooperating with the United State’s antiterrorism efforts.

When reviewing the other most significant developments that have taken place as of 2008 it is clear that the true concern with the agreements between the three nations lie in the topic of coordinated terrorism advancements. Most have had seemingly unusual coincidences(?) with trade, such as the 07 establishment of civilian airline flights, but will be covered in detail in part 3 of the Veiled Trio series. Regardless of your own opinions, there is one thing cannot be ignored: the sheer amount of developments and agreements that have been taking place between the three nations over the past three years. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Three of the most troubling not-so allies the United States continually does not significantly manage to increase positive relations with are banning together – and are gaining momentum (coincidentally?) as Russia is reemerging as a major player within the various regions. Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been stepping up negotiations both bilaterally and multilaterally a great deal over the past few years, and according to US government officials they are not anticipated to slow down any time soon. There are 3 primary issues of concern between the trio that are of utmost concern: nuclear proliferation, trade, and military agreements/terrorist group activity.

This 3 part series will review the situation at hand following closely a pending piece of US legislation proposed by Illena Ros-Lehtinen. Her bill, H.R.7068 seeks to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity” in regards to a host of troubling developments that the American public is all too naive about. The facts found below were outlined in Ros-Lehtinen’s bill, which can be found in pdf format here.

Nuclear proliferation

The United States recently has aggravated the world with the passage of H.R.7081, the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.” Or, in a more realistic light, “The US agreement that allowing US companies to get $80 billion + in contracts from India’s new nuclear plant construction plans”. This has dulled the US’ arsenal of criticism directed at Russia for its new generous gifts and joint military exercises with Venezuela accompanied with nuclear-bearing Russian ships relocating to Chavez’s coasts. American citizens are so tired of hearing the word “nuclear” that’s all too often paired with terms such as “chemical and biological weapons” that we often miss the gravity of the situation at hand. Here are the facts:

The Chavez brothers and their minions have publicly supported Iran’s uranium enrichment program, often while smiling directly at United States’ diplomats and leaving the room when US diplomats begin to speak for years.  

In May 2005, Chavez expressed interest in establishing a nuclear program and made public his request to the Iranian government for assistance. Three years is a long time, and unfortunately the American public has not been privy to a lot of the developments that have occurred since. What we do know is that on February 4, 2006, Venezuela joined only 2 countries in voting against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) resolution to report Iran for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty violations. Eleven days later Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, the Speaker of the Iranian parliament, stated his and the Iranian government’s readiness to provide technical assistance to a Venezuelan nuclear program.

More recently, on a visit to Iran in February 2008, a member of Venezuela’s parliament said that Iran would be willing to “practically give away” its civilian nuclear technology and that “if relations with Iran lead to sharing nuclear technology with us, we would then give it away to our brothers (Cuba) in Latin America once we are successful.” This is extremely concerning considering that the US government has suspected Hugo to have large deposits of uranium ore in the Guiana Shield Region of Venezuela. Perhaps even more startling was Chavez’s announcement on September 29, 2008 stating he would like Russia to help his country develop a nuclear program, quoting Putin as saying Russia “is ready to help Venezuela develop nuclear energy.” Of course according to both governments all nuclear developments would only be used for “peaceful purposes” as the countries’ mutual “profound friendship” would ensure for Americans.

These developments are only the beginning as nuclear advancements between the countries have escaladed quicker than many analysts feared. I would go as far as to argue that Russia has not only emerged with a strong presence within the region and the covert trio, but has found itself at a near supremacy-level when comparing the US’ developments with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba over the past few years. The situations that are developing will only become more of a priority over the next coming years, regardless if McCain or Obama is directing our policies. The US will need to take a hard examination as to whether or not we have any sway remaining after violating the major international formal agreement for nuclear-proliferation, while criticizing countries for taking actions that mirror the United States.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

As a young American in the 21st century, I have never known oppression. I have never longed for freedom because I was born free with the ability to make my own choices and be whoever I want. Thousands every day live in fear of just speaking their own minds. As Americans we look on to those nations of tyranny half-way across the world. We sympathize, but never truly realize. One such nation lives in our very own backyard just 90 miles off the tip of Florida. That nation is Cuba.

US-Cuban relations have been virtually non-existent for decades. Since 1961, official US policy has been economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. Key issues for America’s “beef” with the island nation arise from human rights violations, Guantanamo Bay, and the Cuban exile community living in Southern Florida. During his administration, President Bush has kept things tight concerning Cuba. Americans may only visit immediate family once every 3 years with an allowance of up to $300 to carry into Cuba. In 2003, President Bush established the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, where several Cuban-Americans sit. Under the CAFC, a fund called the “Cuba Fund for a Democratic Future” was developed to support independent civil society, finance university scholarships, and break the information barricade in Cuba.  Congress has been a little more lenient on the island by amending the trade embargo to allow agricultural exports from the U.S. to Cuba.

Earlier in 2008, Fidel Castro stepped down and relinquished command to his brother, Raul. Who else better to leave your throne to than family? The change in power has sparked a debate on future US-Cuban relations. Raul seems to have indicated a willingness to at least listen to what the U.S government has to say. Perhaps it hasn’t gotten as much media time as the energy debate, but Cuba is still an important topic for the 2008 Presidential race. McCain and Obama have similar, yet different views concerning Cuba. John McCain would keep the embargo in place and not permit economic aid. In general, he has voted in support of restrictions on Cuba. In 1992, he cosponsored the Cuban Democracy Act. According to McCain, he would “press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media and to schedule internationally monitored elections”. Barack Obama would also not lift the embargo unless Cuba liberates its political prisoners, start instituting free press and take other steps to democratize. He has voted twice to cut off TV Marti Funding.  However, Obama looks to stabilize relations at some point. He would allocate for unrestricted family travel and remittance to the island. In his May 2008 speech in Miami, Obama stated “There are no better ambassadors for Freedom than Cuban-Americans”.

The change in leadership within both nations may bring about more diplomatic relations in the future. Perhaps, one day we will see a free Cuba.