CUBA-UNITED STATES: Havana the Big Loser in Aeroplane Crisis

By Dalia Acosta Reprint | | Print |

Dalia Acosta

HAVANA, Mar 1 1996 (IPS) - The consequences of Cuba’s downing two aeroplanes belonging to the Cuban-American “Brother’s to the Rescue” organisation may be a case of President Fidel Castro biting off far more than he can chew.

Regardless of whether the decision to attack the planes was right or the wrong, the gentle easing of relations with Washington has been abruptly ended and chances of prompt agreement with the European Union (EU) dashed.

As if this wasn’t enough, the conflict will directly affect tourism and scare off the foreign investment and funding urgently needed to resolve the five year-old economic crisis.

Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, director of the America Department of the Foreign Ministry, said Thursday that the tighter US embargo will set back negotiations between the countries “almost eternally.”

The green light given the Helms-Burton bill, a US proposal to strengthen the embargo on Cuba, resurrected the old issue of the US company property confiscated in the 1959 revolution, complicating the foreign investment panorama.

Sources within US government said the list of legal claims lodged against Cuba included more than 6,000 corporations and individuals, including IT&T, the Cuban Electric Co., North American Sugar Industries and Nicaro Nickel Co.

Although the international community opposes the project, the Helms-Burton bill will permit the prosecution of any foreign business investing in former US properties on the island.

Spain, Canada and Mexico are the three biggest investors. There are a total of 212 mixed businesses with foreign companies with commitments worth some 2.1 billion dollars at the end of 1995.

“With Helms-Burton the Cuba issue will become the US Congress prerogative, where the president will be unable to decide,” said Fernandez de Cossio.

The confrontation between the nations, the second in two years, erupted Feb. 24 when the Cuban air force shot down two civil aircraft flying out of the US.

The Clinton administration accused Cuba of attacking two unarmed civilian aeroplanes over international waters.

Cuba claims the vessels were in their airspace and that they had already warned they would react to the provocation on several occasions.

The Cuban authorities published a list of eight incidents of airspace violation between 1994 and 1996, along with information which was sent in eight diplomatic memos to the US Interests Section in Havana.

Under pressure from the United States the UN Security Council issued a declaration regretting the incident and the presumed deaths of four people, before Cuban Foreign Minister Roberto Robaina had a chance to intervene.

Local experts stated that “unlike the boat people crisis,” which was solved by negotiations in 1994, the “aeroplane crisis” would mean unilateral measures against the island.

According to Fernandez de Cossio, the only trump card in the Cuban hand – the migratory agreements made last year – are still intact, and until now there has been no official interest in changing the terms.

The new tough line announced by the United States were interpreted by Cuban experts as “an electoral manoeuvre” by the Clinton administration, as part of a well-orchestrated plan to generate tensions managed by the Cuban right in Miami.

Political experts in Havana said Clinton’s hardline stance towards the island will do nothing to boost his chances of reelection.

“Whatever Clinton does, the Cuban vote in Florida has always been Republican,” said one expert. Once the aircraft had been shot down, “he had no option but to take a position which fitted in with his policy.”

“The only ones who stood to benefit from these events were the ultra-right Cubans in Miami,” added the specialist.

This powerful group, represented by the National Cuban-American Foundation (FNCA), broke off relations with the US government when they were not consulted in secret 1995 migratory agreements.

Then, on Jul. 13, 1995, the fruits of their frustration erupted into “civil disobedience” when they mounted an air and naval fleet which entered Cuban waters and flew over the Malecon, the coastal road of Havana.

“Business people, retired military leaders, environmentalists and even four US Congressmen have visited Cuba in the first few months of this year,” said the expert, “and the right wingers are not too keen on this at all.”

This sector of exiles were upset that Clinton’s sanctions only suspended all flights between Miami and Havana, limited Cuban diplomatic action in the US and called for international measures to be taken.

They wanted a full naval blockade, all diplomatic offices to be closed, all economic transactions, flights and remittances to be suspended.

“We are talking about a group of fanatics, capable of sacrificing themselves and incapable of seeing the consequences of their actions for the people,” said an official in the Cuban Foreign Ministry.