|
New York Times
criticizes U.S. policy toward Cuba
For
the fifth time in less than a month, the New York
Times has published an editorial on Cuba, this
time acknowledging the numerous futile attempts made
by the United States to undermine stability in Cuba,
in hopes of provoking an uprising against the
government.
 On
Sunday November 9, under the title, “In Cuba,
Misadventures in Regime Change,” the influential
paper’s Editorial Committee reviewed the failed U.S.
policy, and multiple attempts made to destabilize
the country, since the approval of the Helms-Burton
Act, in 1996.
The
Times emphasizes that these subversive projects have
cost the government 264 million dollars over 18
years, in a futile attempt to promote what it calls
democratic reforms in Cuba.
The
editorial acknowledges, “Far from accomplishing that
goal, the initiatives have been largely
counterproductive. The funds have been a magnet for
charlatans, swindlers… The stealthy programs have
increased hostility between the two nations … and
stymied opportunities to cooperate in areas of
mutual interest.”
The
Times details how during the Bush administration,
“Spending on initiatives to oust the government
surged from a few million a year to more than $20
million in 2004. Most contracts were awarded,
without much oversight, to newly formed
Cuban-American groups. One used funds on a legally
questionable global lobbying effort to persuade
foreign governments to support America’s unpopular
embargo. Other grantees sent loads of comic books to
the American diplomatic mission in Havana,
bewildering officials there. The money was also used
to buy food and clothes, but there was no way to
track how much reached relatives of political
prisoners, the intended recipients.
“According to a November 2006 report by the
Government Accountability Office, one contractor
used the pro-democracy money to buy “a gas chain
saw, computer gaming equipment and software
(including Nintendo Game Boys and Sony
PlayStations), a mountain bike, leather coats,
cashmere sweaters, crab meat and Godiva chocolates,”
purchases he was unable to justify to auditors.”
In
December 2009, Cuban authorities arrested a U.S.
citizen contracted to travel to the island five
times on USAID business, posing as a tourist to
smuggle communication equipment, the Times recalls,
adding “Senior officials at USAID and the State
Department were startled by the risks being taken,
and some argued that the covert programs were
counterproductive and should be stopped. But
Cuban-American lawmakers fought vigorously to keep
them alive.”
“After Mr. Gross’s arrest,” the Times continues,
“The aid agency stopped sending American contractors
into Cuba, but it allowed its contractors to recruit
Latin Americans for secret missions that were
sometimes detected by the Cuban intelligence
services. An investigation by The Associated Press
published in April revealed a controversial program
carried out during the Obama administration. Between
2009 and 2012, Creative Associates International, a
Washington firm, built a rudimentary text messaging
system similar to Twitter, known as ZunZuneo, Cuban
slang for a hummingbird’s tweet. It was supposed to
provide Cubans with a platform to share messages
with a mass audience, and ultimately be used to
assemble “smart mobs.”
“The
program was scrapped in 2012. Contractors had been
paying tens of thousands of dollars in
text-messaging fees to the Cuban telecommunications
company and never found a way to make the platform
self-sustaining. A second A.P. report revealed in
August that U.S.A.I.D. had been sending young Latin
Americans to Cuba to identify “potential social
change actors,” under the pretext of organizing
gatherings like an HIV prevention workshop.”
The
editorial emphasizes that, instead of hatching
undercover plots to overthrow the Cuban government,
U.S. leaders need to find a way to cooperate with
the Cuban government, concluding, “Washington should
recognize that the most it can hope to accomplish is
to positively influence Cuba’s evolution toward a
more open society. That is more likely to come about
through stronger diplomatic relations than
subterfuge.” (Prensa Latina)
|
