A Road Map to Solve the Alan Gross Case

-

This is a guest note by Lawrence Wilkerson, Visiting Harriman Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary, and Arturo Lopez-Levy, Lecturer in the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. Dawn Gable contributed to this article.
alan gross.jpgA Road Map to Solve Alan Gross case
by Lawrence Wilkerson and Arturo Lopez-Levy
The trial in Cuba against USAID subcontractor Alan Gross, which will begin on March 4, presents an opportunity for the Cuban government to both demonstrate the legitimate basis for nationalist defense against U.S. interventionist policy and its good will towards the millions of potential American travelers to Cuba.
By the end of the trial, it should be clear that U.S. travelers to Cuba have nothing to fear if they keep a healthy distance from regime change programs and that Washington and Havana would both gain from dismantling hostile attitudes.
The trial serves three Cuban government purposes:

(1) It will mobilize the nationalist sentiments of the Cuban people to denounce foreign interference in Cuba’s internal affairs. The trial must clarify whether Gross informed the leaders of the Jewish community in Cuba of his link to the USAID Cuba program sponsored under the auspices of the Helms-Burton Act. If not, this will expose a design flaw of a semi-covert subversive program in which the USAID placed Cubans at risk of long prison sentences without their informed consent, thus violating basic standards of international development assistance. By now it is evident that the Bush Administration, which conceived the project, was not interested in promoting Cuban civil society, but rather in using religious solidarity as a political weapon.
(2) It will set an example and deter other Cubans, Americans, and nationals of third countries from participating in regime change programs under the Helms-Burton Act. No one after Alan Gross will be able to claim ignorance of the risk involved. Everything related to section 109 of the Helms Burton Act carries the stigma of illegal interference in Cuba’s sovereign affairs and is punishable in Cuba by up to 20 years imprisonment.
(3) It will generate international condemnation of US policy and invigorate solidarity with Cuban sovereignty. By exposing the unilateralist, covert and interventionist nature of the USAID Cuba program, the trial will mobilize international opinion, not only triggering a more vigorous rejection of the U.S. embargo, but also tarnishing the credibility of the USAID in other countries. It is a blow, intangible but significant, to President Obama’s foreign policy that focuses on the use of US popular appeal and bridge building. To the extent that the impact in countries such as Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and even El Salvador and Argentina, for example, will be greater, the State Department and the U.S. Congress cannot ignore the costs of disguising a Cuba regime change policy as international development assistance.

Undermine the Helms-Burton Act but set Alan Gross free
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson’s hope that Gross be tried and sent home is reasonable. Alan Gross is a victim of the hostility between the two countries and a policy that is not typical of American values and standards. His and his family’s ordeal has attracted considerable humanitarian solidarity. As the first US citizen arrested under the law to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cuba, Gross should be given the benefit of the doubt and become an example of Cuba’s goodwill towards the people of the United States.
If the Obama administration offers to facilitate a favorable international climate for the economic reforms taking place in Cuba, the utility of retaining Alan Gross, once the trial has concluded, would decline for the Cuban government.
Once the dividends related to the denouncement of the policy outlined in the Helms-Burton Act are obtained, the only benefit for the Cuban government in keeping Gross in prison would be the frequent mention of his case in relation to the situation of the five Cubans who were sentenced in Miami on charges of espionage in trials considered by Amnesty International and the UN group on arbitrary detention as lacking guarantees of fairness and impartiality. Although the cases must be analyzed separately, it is worth noting that the lawyer representing Gross at trial also serves as legal counselor for the families of the five.
In these circumstances a visit to Havana by the two highest ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar would be very helpful. Such a visit could be preceded by a delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Through interacting with the Cuban office of religious affairs and the leadership of the Cuban Jewish community, they would learn firsthand how their brothers in faith reject the Helms-Burton Act and any misuse of inter-religious contacts as a political weapon for regime change.
Journalists could accompany the entourage and report on the island’s welcoming attitude toward US travelers. The visiting US delegation could meet the relatives of the five Cubans imprisoned in the U.S., hearing their views on that trial and becoming aware of the need for political courage on both sides of the Florida Straits to end the policies that led to the arrests of the Cubans and of Gross.
A Cuban humanitarian gesture towards the Gross family would add impetus to the advocates of a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba and recognize those many Americans who oppose the embargo. It might also create momentum for a substantial American gesture of d

Comments

5 comments on “A Road Map to Solve the Alan Gross Case

  1. Carroll says:

    The story is as usual confusing. Like our

    Reply

  2. Ian Kaplan says:

    Wow! Lawrence Wilkerson really has gone off the deep end. It’s one thing to be radicalized by Bush Cheney. It’s another to pen something that looks like Cuban propaganda. I’m really shocked. I used to respect Wilkerson. It would be tragic if his alter career descends into leftist crankdom.

    Reply

  3. JohnH says:

    Maybe Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson’s could also hope that the Cuban Five be sent home too.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five

    Reply

  4. WigWag says:

    “Once the dividends related to the denouncement of the policy outlined in the Helms-Burton Act are obtained, the only benefit for the Cuban government in keeping Gross in prison would be the frequent mention of his case in relation to the situation of the five Cubans who were sentenced in Miami on charges of espionage in trials considered by Amnesty International and the UN group on arbitrary detention as lacking guarantees of fairness and impartiality.” (Wilkerson/Lopez-Levy)
    Do the authors of this post expect to be taken seriously in their insinuation that the trial that the “five Cubans” received in an American Court of law is equivalent in terms of fairness to the trial that Gross is likely to receive in a Cuban Court? Do Wilkerson and Lopez-Levy really believe that the Cuban legal system is as impartial as the American legal system? Actually, I think they might believe it, which would really say something about the two of them.
    Have Wilkerson or Lopez-Levy bothered to even look at the nations represented on the “Working Group on Arbitrary Detention?” Of the seven nations represented on the Working Group board, two are Russia and Pakistan; yeah no one was ever arbitrarily detained in those countries.
    The Working Group is as much of a joke as the Cuban legal system. The Working Group is also as much of a joke as its parent organization, “The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Of course the High Commissioner is advised in his work by the Human Rights Council. Who are some of the members of the Human Rights Council?
    Well, there are a number of member nations where a commitment to human rights reigns supreme. Included are: China, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba itself and until yesterday, Libya.
    Whatever the realities of the Alan Gross case, this post by Wilkerson and Lopez-Levy is just too silly to be taken seriously.

    Reply

  5. WigWag says:

    “In these circumstances a visit to Havana by the two highest ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar would be very helpful.” (Wilkerson and Lopez-Levy)
    Sure, why not? After they leave Havana they can fly to Tripoli and have a cup of tea Moammar Gadhafi. If they’re not too jet-lagged, on the way home Senators Kerry and Lugar can make a quick stop in North Korea and watch reruns of this year’s Academy Awards with the “Dear Leader.”
    Is this really what passes for serious advice from former high level government officials or members of the faculty from prestigious American universities?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *