POLITICS-CUBA/US: The Absurdity of the Tail Wagging the Dog

By Dalia Acosta Reprint | | Print |

Analysis Dalia Acosta

HAVANA, Feb 22 2001 (IPS) - Hassan Havana, a lovely example of an Afghan hound, saw her participation in Cuban canine expositions threatened by the official interrogation of one her owners, Vicki Huddleston, head of the United States Interests Section in the island’s capital.

Huddleston’s co-ownership seems to be the only “defect” of the show dog, a winner of many trophies in Cuba. The episode that put her in the spotlight serves as an illustration that the relations between the Caribbean nation and the United States are often driven by non-diplomatic powers.

The dog’s case produced controversy, an exchange of insults and apologies, and high-level representatives of the two governments even joined the fray.

Cuba’s National Association of Afghan Hounds (ANLA) sent a letter Feb 6 to Huddleston to advise her that, due to her “anti- Cuban” attitude, her dog, Hassan Havana, would henceforth be excluded from the group’s activities.

“It is unfortunate that the Cuban government would turn against Ambassador Huddleston’s dog,” said US State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher.

But ANLA, in a second communiqué addressed to the foreign media on the island, Feb 16, attempted to clear up the “misunderstandings,” explaining that the one expelled from the organisation was Huddleston, not her dog.

Hassan Havana, said the text, may continue participating in ANLA events as long as the animal is led by her other owner.

A top official at the Cuban foreign ministry commented that the media impact of the incident shows that “even the most minimal action of the islanders” awakens exaggerated journalistic interest outside the country.

Political analysts, meanwhile, agree that this anecdotal event provides a useful illustration of the tensions dominating relations between socialist-run Cuba and Washington, which can range “from the sublime to the ridiculous.”

An expert from the Cuban government-run Centre for United States Studies told IPS that bilateral relations, non-existent in diplomatic terms, occur through alternative channels with an intensity that is often difficult to follow.

Both governments maintain their usual confrontational stance and react drastically to any act or statement by the other, while contacts and even collaboration silently occur between official agencies of the two countries.

Cuban and US institutions, without any formal agreement, systematically exchange information in the areas of Caribbean meteorology and go as far as engaging in joint actions to combat drug trafficking in the region.

In addition, a lawsuit underway in a US court against a group of Cuban intelligence agents has put the possibility on the table for collaboration between government entities in Havana and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

It is estimated that more than 50,000 US tourists visit Cuba each year without permission from their government, violating the regulations established under the embargo imposed nearly 40 years ago against the island. And Cuban exiles living in the United States are increasingly making the journey home to visit relatives.

The US tourists include intellectuals, academics, artists, politicians, entrepreneurs, students, scientists, solidarity groups, and even piano tuners. In many cases, top Cuban officials receive these US visitors.

This month alone, Cuba was visited by a special Council of Foreign Relations delegation, headed by banker David Rockefeller, and by a group from the independent Centre for Defence Information (CDI), a Washington-based military watchdog.

Rockefeller commented that the mission of the Council, made up of 19 bankers, business leaders and former diplomats, had a “very interesting meeting” with President Fidel Castro on Feb 17, a gathering that lasted five-hours.

The non-partisan group presented a report on Cuba and on Havana-Washington relations before the US Congress late last year that was harshly criticised by the state-run media on the island.

This time, criticism was put aside, opting instead for a frank exchange about the report that, according to US academic Walter Russell, underscored the possibility for “individuals from the two countries to reach deeper understanding.”

In the first week of February, retired Gen. Charles Wilhelm – who until last year was head of the US Southern Command – arrived in Havana.

Wilhelm visited Cuba as a member of the CDI group. When he served as military chief in charge of all US military operations in Latin America, he had been prohibited from any contact with members of the Cuban armed forces.

Retired army Col. Dan Smith, now director of the CDI, explained that his group had gone to the island to speak with Cuban military leaders, a trip “similar to others made previously, though never before with someone of Gen. Wilhelm’s rank.”

Coinciding with this latest visit, a new theory about Cuba’s potential threat to US security was presented to the Intelligence Committee of the US Senate.

Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson, chief of the US Defence Intelligence Agency, stated that Cuba possesses the ability to attack the computer systems of the US armed forces using “asymmetric war” tactics.

The term refers to the response that an inferior military force can launch against a greater power’s military and civilian infrastructures, such as a terrorist group’s attack on a computer network.

For the defenders of the blockade against Cuba, the island’s cyberspace threat constitutes a nuclear danger, but their theory lost some steam in December when Havana announced a halt on construction of a nuclear power plant.

Also this month, Cuban officials announced they would consider how to respond to a ruling by a US federal court judge that on Feb 16 initiated compensation for the families of three anti-Castro pilots who were shot down by the Cuban air force in Feb 1996.

Funding for the 93-million-dollar reparations comes from frozen bank accounts held by Cuba in the United States.

A study presented before Congress on that same day by the International Trade Commission, a politically independent organisation, concluded that the embargo against Cuba has had scant effect on the trade sector of either country.

Academics in both countries see the continuation of the trade sanctions as the greatest absurdity of the current US policy toward Cuba, pointing out that four decades are more than enough to prove its failure.

Even some leaders of the opposition to the Castro government now believe that an opening in economic relations between the United States and Cuba would hasten an end to the socialist regime on the island.