Return to Transcripts main page

Q&A with Jim Clancy

Will Restrictions on Travel to Cuba Be Lifted?

Aired October 27, 2003 - 14:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR (voice-over): With both Houses of the U.S. Congress recently voting to tend the 40-year-old U.S. travel ban to Cuba, they are now on a collision coarse with the U.S. president.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD) SENATE MINORITY LEADER: And it is important for us to recognize that as we trade with China, Vietnam and countries around the world with whom we have disagreements, that it is equally as important for us to find ways in which to do it with a country 90 miles off of our shores.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Clearly, the Castro regime will not change by its own choice, but Cuba must change.

VERJEE: The president explains his staff (ph) by saying diplomatic initiatives aimed at easing restrictions with Cuba have been met with defiance and contempt. On this edition of Q&A, will the restrictions be lifted?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VERJEE: Welcome to Q&A. Less than two weeks after the U.S. president declared that Cuba must change and that travel restriction will be strengthened, the U.S. House and the Senate voted to end the travel ban. It is not the first time U.S. politicians have voted that way, but it comes just as the U.S. president has sharp criticism for Cuban leader Fidel Castro. The U.S. president says Cuba's recent crackdown on opposition leaders, elections are a sham and the suppression of unions have all lead him to believe that Cuba will not change wittingly but change it must. How to bring about that change is the debate. And we have both sides here on Q&A.

They are both with us at the CNN Center. It is a pleasure to have in Atlanta are Havana bureau chief Lucia Newman. Lucia, the Senate and the House voting to end 40 years of restriction on travel to Cuba, Bush says no, I want to tighten it. How is the Castro regime reading this?

LUCIA NEWMAN, CNN HAVANA BUREAU CHIEF: Well, very obviously, the Cuban government is thrilled with the vote that has taken place in the House and now in the Senate. They are pushing very much for the travel restrictions to be lifted so that the government can have what it needs most right now and that is tourism with which to buy everything that this country needs. The economy is in tatters. It desperately needs more tourism. And the closest place, of course, to get these tourists is the United States. It is only 90 miles away. Florida is only 90 miles away. The United States used to be the biggest trading partner with Cuba and the biggest source of tourism. So they are obviously at loggerheads. The Castro government is applauding this measure. But is it saying, of course, that it won't do anything to change its own internal political structure to make that easier.

VERJEE: The U.S. is saying it is going to tighten things up. It is going to stop persecuting people. Is it going to hurt? Will that hurt?

NEWMAN: Absolutely, and it has already begun, Zain. We have seen just in the last week alone when I came in from Cuba to the United States via Miami I saw how some of these tightened enforcement measures were taking place. People that get off the plane from Cuba now are followed very often to see where they are going. They are sent into special lines and having their luggage checked. There are far greater restrictions being placed on Americans who have been coming fairly freely into Cuba, most often through third countries. And that is going to be stopping very soon. Also, Zain, a lot of American organizations had licenses from the U.S. Treasury Department to host so-called cultural exchange programs, educational exchange programs with Cuba. So we were seeing really thousands of Americans coming into Cuba, basically as tourists. While that is going to stop by the end of this year if not sooner.

VERJEE: The sanctions, the travel restrictions haven't changed the regime, haven't promoted any political change have they?

NEWMAN: No, they haven't. They haven't changed the system. But I think it is also very fair to say that the more that the Cuban people brush shoulders with people from other countries including the United States the more they start to also see themselves in a different light. And, you know, there are those who say that while the Cuban government has been able to resist embargoes, political pressures and could even resist bombs. It is not so certain whether it could resist a bombardment of tourists, especially from the United States.

VERJEE: What about change from within Cuba? A project known as the Valera Project is out there. How much support does it have? Could that be a tool for promoting political change in Cuba?

NEWMAN: Well, it is very interesting. The Valera Project was introduced as a way to try to bring about sweeping political and economic changes within Cuba from within the system itself, using as the basis the Cuban constitution. The Cuban government has absolutely balked at the idea, will have none of it. A lot of the people, in fact, who have been promoting the Valera Project are in prison now, some of them with prison sentences of over 20 years. It is not as widely known within Cuba as one might think. They've got no way of publicizing their proposition. But thanks to President Jimmy Carter, ironically, who was in Cuba just more than a year ago he mentioned it on a speech that was televised live to everyone in Cuba. And so while people haven't actually read the fine print of the Valera project they know that there is something out there to bring about change in a peaceful. And there is a lot of interest in it -- Zain.

VERJEE: Havana bureau chief Lucia Newman. Thanks so much Lucia, good to see you.

With us now from Miami is Joe Garcia, the executive director of the Cuban-American National Foundation.. In Washington, Philip Peters, vice president of the Lexington Institute and editor of the "Cuba Policy Report." Philip Peters should the travel ban be lifted?

PHILIP PETERS, VICE PRESIDENT, LEXINGTON INSTITUTE: Well, sure it should. I think it absolutely should for several reasons. First of all, it is an infringement on freedom of Americans that has no reason for being. To lift the travel ban and let Americans travel there freely would spread American influence in Cuba in a way that we don't now. It would help a lot of Cubans who make a living from tourism, whether they are in the tourism industry or whether they have little businesses, restaurants, a lot of them rent rooms in their homes. A lot of them would prosper.

But even beyond that there is a very important reason here and that is that it is a use of federal police power that is really just wrong. Lucia was beginning to allude to what is going on in the airport there in Miami. As a result of President Bush's speech on October 10th, what is happening now is that every single passenger going to Cuba is being searched by federal agents. And what they are doing is they are searching Cuban-Americans. And they are making sure that they are not going too frequently to go visit their mom, are not carrying too much money with which to help their family. And that is just the wrong thing to do.

VERJEE: Joe Garcia, those seem like good reasons don't they of getting rid of the ban or do they?

JOE GARCIA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CUBAN-AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION: You know, Phil making it seem like the United States has implemented some kind of police state system is completely absurd. Look, these are laws that have been on the books a very long time. They haven't been enforced not only by this administration but by previous administrations. And we are the first to agree that people seeing their family should be able to bring more funds. Right now, anybody visiting their family can take up to $3,000 per person, so I think the limits are relatively high. And we try to control the amount of money that gets to a regime of this nature is only natural, especially when you consider that regime is a participant in terrorism, is on the terrorist list, has a U.S. fugitives of justice, has relationship with terrorists organizations across the world, it only makes sense for the United States to have a very direct policy.

VERJEE: I want to address that in a minute. Philip Peters, go ahead though.

PETERS: That is not exactly right. The law ahs been on the books for some times but it hasn't been enforced. There has not been a case yet until - since October 10th where the Bush administration has been enforcing against Cuban Americans. And it is not (UNINTELLIGIBLE) per family ...

GARCIA: And I ...

PETERS: if I could just finish Joe, it is not $3,000 per family, you are allowed to bring $100 per month to your family in Cuba. That is better than nothing but it doesn't go very far. And I just think it is wrong - and this is clearly why the Congress is moving in this direction because it is wrong for the United States to police how people visit their families ...

GARCIA: You just misstated what the law is. First of all, you can bring up to $3,000 per person and it is up to $100 per person and not per family. Look, no one is going to question the Cuban-American's community's commitment to helping their brethren on the island. The money given to the relatives in Cuba makes the Marshall Plan look like a drop in the bucket, billions of dollars to help ...

(CROSSTALK)

VERJEE: OK, all right, OK, we can talk numbers here but the bottom line isn't it Joe Garcia is that the ban is costly and the ban is ineffective?

GARCIA: What do you mean costly?

VERJEE: Costly to enforce to the United States.

GARCIA: That is ridiculous, costly to enforce - less than $4 million a year being spent to enforce it. When you talk about remittances somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion to a billion point two, what are you talking about costly.

VERJEE: Well, the House and the Senate both said that it is a costly enforcement to have.

GARCIA: I am sorry. That is not what the House and the Senate said. What the House and the Senate said was in order not to have this travel ban, we are going to take the money away from enforcement and, therefore, we are going to have it. Well, here is what is fascinating ...

VERJEE: All right, OK, is it costly or not?

GARCIA: It is not costly to ...

VERJEE: I am asking Philip Peters. Philip Peters is it or isn't it?

PETERS: It is costly. In monetary terms, there is a cost to it. But it is very costly in terms of the rights of American citizens whether they are Cuban-Americans or others. And one of the things, Zain, that you are touching on is exactly right. One of the things that the members of Congress stated there in the debate was that President Bush is now using agents of the Department of Homeland Security in their own words, "to use intelligence and investigative resources," to try to track down Americans who try to get to Cuba through a third world country. Now it is the job (ph) of that department to fight terrorism not to track down people who try to get to Cuba. That is a misuse of resources. That is why Joe's position is losing in the House and the Senate.

VERJEE: Joe, should the president veto this?

GARCIA: I don't think the president is going to get it. And I think it would pretty pathetic for the president's veto to be used once in the last three years of his power for something as insignificant as this. I think it will probably be killed by the leadership when they do an omnibus bill in the Senate and House versions. And I think you will see it stripped there. I don't think it will get to the president's desk. I think if it gets to the president's desk he will most certainly veto it.

VERJEE: Philip?

PETERS: Well, I think it will be a pretty sad way to try to teach Cubans about democracy by stripping something from a bill that has been approved by a majority in both Houses. That would be ...

(CROSSTALK)

GARCIA: Phil, let me tell you, Phil, I think we've got a lot that we can teach the Cuban people about democracy, a country which has had no political elections in over 44 years, in which the largest segment of the economy is paid for by Cuban exiles and their generosity to that regime. And I don't think we are questioning that.

VERJEE: Joe Garcia, economic sanctions there - restrictions against Cuba, they failed to get results. They failed to promote political change. And the bottom line is it doesn't work.

GARCIA: Look, I would argue with that. I think that that bottom line analysis, the bottom line analysis in a vacuum, you are talking about a very repressive regime, a regime which has participated from other regimes around the world that have subsidized for its use of terrorism as a base, for it uses of a base as an operation, for a training center. And to think that because of that it has failed, one would have given up on the Cold War a long time ago. And yet, we won the Cold War. And someone could have said in 1989, we are losing the Cold War. And the truth is we won it big.

VERJEE: Philip Peters, with a few seconds left final word.

PETERS: Well, I don't think that if Cuba were the threat that Joe is painting it, I don't think that the chairman of the House Armed Services - rather the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would have voted to get rid of the travel ban as they did last week. And finally, I think if Joe would travel to Cuba and walk around and for once see what it is like among the Cuban people, he would see that there were a great many that want contact with Americans and want it now and to make a good living because of foreign travelers there. And we should add to that, that is the route to American influence not an embargo.

GARCIA: Zain, if I could answer that.

VERJEE: Two seconds, Joe.

GARCIA: I think that the concept that Phil Peters said the tourist industry in Cuba, what you are talking about is street hustlers, vendors, prostitutes and pimps. The government ...

(CROSSTALK)

PETERS: ... before you insult those people.

GARCIA: I'm not insulting those people.

VERJEE: We are out of time. Gentlemen, we are out of time. Joe Garcia, Philip Peters, thank you so much for debating, discussing this on Q&A. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

That is this edition of Q&A. Just before we go we always want to hear from you. E-mail us with your comments to Q&A@cnn.com. We are going to have more news in a moment at CNN.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com



Aired October 27, 2003 - 14:30:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR (voice-over): With both Houses of the U.S. Congress recently voting to tend the 40-year-old U.S. travel ban to Cuba, they are now on a collision coarse with the U.S. president.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD) SENATE MINORITY LEADER: And it is important for us to recognize that as we trade with China, Vietnam and countries around the world with whom we have disagreements, that it is equally as important for us to find ways in which to do it with a country 90 miles off of our shores.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Clearly, the Castro regime will not change by its own choice, but Cuba must change.

VERJEE: The president explains his staff (ph) by saying diplomatic initiatives aimed at easing restrictions with Cuba have been met with defiance and contempt. On this edition of Q&A, will the restrictions be lifted?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VERJEE: Welcome to Q&A. Less than two weeks after the U.S. president declared that Cuba must change and that travel restriction will be strengthened, the U.S. House and the Senate voted to end the travel ban. It is not the first time U.S. politicians have voted that way, but it comes just as the U.S. president has sharp criticism for Cuban leader Fidel Castro. The U.S. president says Cuba's recent crackdown on opposition leaders, elections are a sham and the suppression of unions have all lead him to believe that Cuba will not change wittingly but change it must. How to bring about that change is the debate. And we have both sides here on Q&A.

They are both with us at the CNN Center. It is a pleasure to have in Atlanta are Havana bureau chief Lucia Newman. Lucia, the Senate and the House voting to end 40 years of restriction on travel to Cuba, Bush says no, I want to tighten it. How is the Castro regime reading this?

LUCIA NEWMAN, CNN HAVANA BUREAU CHIEF: Well, very obviously, the Cuban government is thrilled with the vote that has taken place in the House and now in the Senate. They are pushing very much for the travel restrictions to be lifted so that the government can have what it needs most right now and that is tourism with which to buy everything that this country needs. The economy is in tatters. It desperately needs more tourism. And the closest place, of course, to get these tourists is the United States. It is only 90 miles away. Florida is only 90 miles away. The United States used to be the biggest trading partner with Cuba and the biggest source of tourism. So they are obviously at loggerheads. The Castro government is applauding this measure. But is it saying, of course, that it won't do anything to change its own internal political structure to make that easier.

VERJEE: The U.S. is saying it is going to tighten things up. It is going to stop persecuting people. Is it going to hurt? Will that hurt?

NEWMAN: Absolutely, and it has already begun, Zain. We have seen just in the last week alone when I came in from Cuba to the United States via Miami I saw how some of these tightened enforcement measures were taking place. People that get off the plane from Cuba now are followed very often to see where they are going. They are sent into special lines and having their luggage checked. There are far greater restrictions being placed on Americans who have been coming fairly freely into Cuba, most often through third countries. And that is going to be stopping very soon. Also, Zain, a lot of American organizations had licenses from the U.S. Treasury Department to host so-called cultural exchange programs, educational exchange programs with Cuba. So we were seeing really thousands of Americans coming into Cuba, basically as tourists. While that is going to stop by the end of this year if not sooner.

VERJEE: The sanctions, the travel restrictions haven't changed the regime, haven't promoted any political change have they?

NEWMAN: No, they haven't. They haven't changed the system. But I think it is also very fair to say that the more that the Cuban people brush shoulders with people from other countries including the United States the more they start to also see themselves in a different light. And, you know, there are those who say that while the Cuban government has been able to resist embargoes, political pressures and could even resist bombs. It is not so certain whether it could resist a bombardment of tourists, especially from the United States.

VERJEE: What about change from within Cuba? A project known as the Valera Project is out there. How much support does it have? Could that be a tool for promoting political change in Cuba?

NEWMAN: Well, it is very interesting. The Valera Project was introduced as a way to try to bring about sweeping political and economic changes within Cuba from within the system itself, using as the basis the Cuban constitution. The Cuban government has absolutely balked at the idea, will have none of it. A lot of the people, in fact, who have been promoting the Valera Project are in prison now, some of them with prison sentences of over 20 years. It is not as widely known within Cuba as one might think. They've got no way of publicizing their proposition. But thanks to President Jimmy Carter, ironically, who was in Cuba just more than a year ago he mentioned it on a speech that was televised live to everyone in Cuba. And so while people haven't actually read the fine print of the Valera project they know that there is something out there to bring about change in a peaceful. And there is a lot of interest in it -- Zain.

VERJEE: Havana bureau chief Lucia Newman. Thanks so much Lucia, good to see you.

With us now from Miami is Joe Garcia, the executive director of the Cuban-American National Foundation.. In Washington, Philip Peters, vice president of the Lexington Institute and editor of the "Cuba Policy Report." Philip Peters should the travel ban be lifted?

PHILIP PETERS, VICE PRESIDENT, LEXINGTON INSTITUTE: Well, sure it should. I think it absolutely should for several reasons. First of all, it is an infringement on freedom of Americans that has no reason for being. To lift the travel ban and let Americans travel there freely would spread American influence in Cuba in a way that we don't now. It would help a lot of Cubans who make a living from tourism, whether they are in the tourism industry or whether they have little businesses, restaurants, a lot of them rent rooms in their homes. A lot of them would prosper.

But even beyond that there is a very important reason here and that is that it is a use of federal police power that is really just wrong. Lucia was beginning to allude to what is going on in the airport there in Miami. As a result of President Bush's speech on October 10th, what is happening now is that every single passenger going to Cuba is being searched by federal agents. And what they are doing is they are searching Cuban-Americans. And they are making sure that they are not going too frequently to go visit their mom, are not carrying too much money with which to help their family. And that is just the wrong thing to do.

VERJEE: Joe Garcia, those seem like good reasons don't they of getting rid of the ban or do they?

JOE GARCIA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CUBAN-AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION: You know, Phil making it seem like the United States has implemented some kind of police state system is completely absurd. Look, these are laws that have been on the books a very long time. They haven't been enforced not only by this administration but by previous administrations. And we are the first to agree that people seeing their family should be able to bring more funds. Right now, anybody visiting their family can take up to $3,000 per person, so I think the limits are relatively high. And we try to control the amount of money that gets to a regime of this nature is only natural, especially when you consider that regime is a participant in terrorism, is on the terrorist list, has a U.S. fugitives of justice, has relationship with terrorists organizations across the world, it only makes sense for the United States to have a very direct policy.

VERJEE: I want to address that in a minute. Philip Peters, go ahead though.

PETERS: That is not exactly right. The law ahs been on the books for some times but it hasn't been enforced. There has not been a case yet until - since October 10th where the Bush administration has been enforcing against Cuban Americans. And it is not (UNINTELLIGIBLE) per family ...

GARCIA: And I ...

PETERS: if I could just finish Joe, it is not $3,000 per family, you are allowed to bring $100 per month to your family in Cuba. That is better than nothing but it doesn't go very far. And I just think it is wrong - and this is clearly why the Congress is moving in this direction because it is wrong for the United States to police how people visit their families ...

GARCIA: You just misstated what the law is. First of all, you can bring up to $3,000 per person and it is up to $100 per person and not per family. Look, no one is going to question the Cuban-American's community's commitment to helping their brethren on the island. The money given to the relatives in Cuba makes the Marshall Plan look like a drop in the bucket, billions of dollars to help ...

(CROSSTALK)

VERJEE: OK, all right, OK, we can talk numbers here but the bottom line isn't it Joe Garcia is that the ban is costly and the ban is ineffective?

GARCIA: What do you mean costly?

VERJEE: Costly to enforce to the United States.

GARCIA: That is ridiculous, costly to enforce - less than $4 million a year being spent to enforce it. When you talk about remittances somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion to a billion point two, what are you talking about costly.

VERJEE: Well, the House and the Senate both said that it is a costly enforcement to have.

GARCIA: I am sorry. That is not what the House and the Senate said. What the House and the Senate said was in order not to have this travel ban, we are going to take the money away from enforcement and, therefore, we are going to have it. Well, here is what is fascinating ...

VERJEE: All right, OK, is it costly or not?

GARCIA: It is not costly to ...

VERJEE: I am asking Philip Peters. Philip Peters is it or isn't it?

PETERS: It is costly. In monetary terms, there is a cost to it. But it is very costly in terms of the rights of American citizens whether they are Cuban-Americans or others. And one of the things, Zain, that you are touching on is exactly right. One of the things that the members of Congress stated there in the debate was that President Bush is now using agents of the Department of Homeland Security in their own words, "to use intelligence and investigative resources," to try to track down Americans who try to get to Cuba through a third world country. Now it is the job (ph) of that department to fight terrorism not to track down people who try to get to Cuba. That is a misuse of resources. That is why Joe's position is losing in the House and the Senate.

VERJEE: Joe, should the president veto this?

GARCIA: I don't think the president is going to get it. And I think it would pretty pathetic for the president's veto to be used once in the last three years of his power for something as insignificant as this. I think it will probably be killed by the leadership when they do an omnibus bill in the Senate and House versions. And I think you will see it stripped there. I don't think it will get to the president's desk. I think if it gets to the president's desk he will most certainly veto it.

VERJEE: Philip?

PETERS: Well, I think it will be a pretty sad way to try to teach Cubans about democracy by stripping something from a bill that has been approved by a majority in both Houses. That would be ...

(CROSSTALK)

GARCIA: Phil, let me tell you, Phil, I think we've got a lot that we can teach the Cuban people about democracy, a country which has had no political elections in over 44 years, in which the largest segment of the economy is paid for by Cuban exiles and their generosity to that regime. And I don't think we are questioning that.

VERJEE: Joe Garcia, economic sanctions there - restrictions against Cuba, they failed to get results. They failed to promote political change. And the bottom line is it doesn't work.

GARCIA: Look, I would argue with that. I think that that bottom line analysis, the bottom line analysis in a vacuum, you are talking about a very repressive regime, a regime which has participated from other regimes around the world that have subsidized for its use of terrorism as a base, for it uses of a base as an operation, for a training center. And to think that because of that it has failed, one would have given up on the Cold War a long time ago. And yet, we won the Cold War. And someone could have said in 1989, we are losing the Cold War. And the truth is we won it big.

VERJEE: Philip Peters, with a few seconds left final word.

PETERS: Well, I don't think that if Cuba were the threat that Joe is painting it, I don't think that the chairman of the House Armed Services - rather the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would have voted to get rid of the travel ban as they did last week. And finally, I think if Joe would travel to Cuba and walk around and for once see what it is like among the Cuban people, he would see that there were a great many that want contact with Americans and want it now and to make a good living because of foreign travelers there. And we should add to that, that is the route to American influence not an embargo.

GARCIA: Zain, if I could answer that.

VERJEE: Two seconds, Joe.

GARCIA: I think that the concept that Phil Peters said the tourist industry in Cuba, what you are talking about is street hustlers, vendors, prostitutes and pimps. The government ...

(CROSSTALK)

PETERS: ... before you insult those people.

GARCIA: I'm not insulting those people.

VERJEE: We are out of time. Gentlemen, we are out of time. Joe Garcia, Philip Peters, thank you so much for debating, discussing this on Q&A. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

That is this edition of Q&A. Just before we go we always want to hear from you. E-mail us with your comments to Q&A@cnn.com. We are going to have more news in a moment at CNN.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com