Wayne S. Smith says:
(snip) First of all, no one in his right mind (and whatever else he is, Castro is that) would have expected the arrest of over 80 dissidents, many of them well-known international figures, to go unremarked. The Cubans expected a firestorm, and they got it. Second, the timing could hardly be worse from Castro’s standpoint. The UN Human Rights Commission has just begun its annual deliberations to decide, among other things, whether to condemn Cuba for violations of human rights. Given the greater tolerance discussed above, there had seemed a good chance that Cuba would not be condemned this year. The crackdown, coming just now, makes that far less likely. Given all that, why the crackdown and why now? To answer those questions, we must first note that the greater leeway for dissent noted above came in response to the overtures of groups in the American Congress and the American public, not to any easing of the hard line on the part of the Bush Administration. Quite the contrary, its policies and rhetoric remained as hostile and as threatening as ever. It ignored all Cuban offers to begin a dialogue and instead held to an objective of regime change. As Mr. James Cason, the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section has stated publicly, one of his tasks was to promote “transition to a participatory form of government.” Now, we would all like to see a more open society in Cuba, but it is not up to the United States to promote it or bring it about. In fact, it is not up to the United States to decide what form of government Cuba should have. Cuba is, after all, a sovereign country.
The Bush Administration was uncomfortable with signs of greater tolerance on Castro’s part, for that simply encouraged those who wanted to ease travel controls and begin dismantling the embargo. New initiatives along those lines were expected in the Congress this spring. What to do to head them off? What the Administration did is clear enough. It ordered the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to begin a series of high-profile and provocative meetings with dissidents, even holding seminars in his own residence and passing out equipment of various kinds to them. He even held press conferences after some of the meetings. Such meetings might have been considered routine, had the purpose not been regime change. But given that it was, the Cubans came to see them as “subversive” in nature and as increasingly provocative. Those arrested were not, by and large, charged with expressing themselves against the state, but with “plotting with American diplomats.” It has been noted that Cuban diplomats regularly meet with American citizens. True, but to understand Cuban sensitivities in this case, let us imagine the reaction of the U.S. Government if those diplomats were meeting with members of the Puerto Rican Independence Party to promote Puerto Rico’s transition from commonwealth to independence. Perhaps the Attorney General would not have everyone involved arrested, but I wouldn’t take any bets on it.(snip/....)
http://www.cubacentral.com/article.asp?ID=35Maybe you're not acquainted with our history of supporting dissidents in Cuba. For YEARS it has been given to them using "middlemen" to channel U.S. taxpayers' funds from various U.S. agencies like U.S.A.I.D., and N.E.D., before Jesse Helms got the bright idea, (he's hard-right, you know) of adding to his history of filthy work against the people of Cuba, by sponsoring a bill to make DIRECT PAYMENT TO DISSIDENTS from U.S. funds.
(snip) NY Times - May 16, 2001
Helms and Lieberman Seek to Aid Dissidents in Cuba
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
WASHINGTON, May 15 — Seeking to shift the United States' policy toward Cuba, two influential senators, backed by the largest Cuban exile lobby, will introduce legislation on Wednesday to send $100 million in aid to government critics and independent workers in Cuba during the next four years, Congressional officials said.
The bill's sponsors, Senator Jesse Helms, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, say their goal is to provide government opponents in Cuba with the tools they need to subsist and continue their work.
The legislation would authorize the president to send cash, food, medicine, telephones, fax machines and other items to nongovernmental groups in Cuba, which would then distribute the aid. The plan would mark the first effort by the United States to provide direct support for Cuba's internal opposition, though advocates did not say how they would overcome obstacles that its government is certain to erect.
Cubans eligible for the assistance would include political prisoners and their families, dissidents or repatriated refugees, independent economists and journalists and members of religious groups. The bill would also seek to funnel resources to independent libraries or agricultural groups in Cuba and alter the American trade ban to allow some self- employed Cubans to market their products in the United States. (snip/...)
http://www.freeserbia.net/Articles/2001/Dissidents.htmlWritten by a former C.I.A. agent,Philip Agee:
(snip)
(snip) The NED is supposedly a private, non-government, non-profit foundation, but it receives a yearly appropriation from the US Congress. The money is channelled through four “core foundations”. These are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (linked to the Democratic Party); the International Republican Institute (Republican Party); the American Center for International Labor Solidarity; and the Center for International Private Enterprise (US Chamber of Commerce).
According to its web site, the NED also gives money directly to “groups abroad who are working for human rights, independent media, the rule of law, and a wide range of civil society initiatives.”
The NED's NGO status provides the fiction that recipients of NED money are getting “private” rather than US government money. This is important because so many countries, including both the US and Cuba, have laws relating to their citizens being paid to carry out activities for foreign governments.
The US requires an individual or organisation “subject to foreign control” to register with the attorney general and to file detailed activities reports, including finances, every six months. Cuba has its own laws criminalising actions intended to jeopardise its sovereignty or territorial integrity as well as actions supporting the goals of the anti-Cuba US Helms-Burton Act of 1996, such as collecting information to support the US embargo or to subvert the government, or for disseminating US government information to undermine the Cuban government.
Efforts to develop an opposition civil society in Cuba had already begun in 1985 with the early NED grants to CANF. These efforts received a significant boost with passage in 1992 of the Cuban Democracy Act, better known as the Torricelli Act, which promoted support, through US NGOs, of individuals and organisations committed to “non-violent democratic change in Cuba”.
A still greater intensification came with passage in 1996 of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act, better known as the Helms-Burton Act.
(snip) These NGOs have a double purpose, one directed to their counterpart groups in Cuba and one directed to the world, mainly through web sites. Whereas, on the one hand, they channel funds and equipment into Cuba, on the other they disseminate to the world the activities of the groups in Cuba. Cubanet in Miami, for example, publishes the writings of the “independent journalists” of the Independent Press Association of Cuba, based in Havana, and channels money to the writers. (snip/...)
~~~~ link ~~~~