Conference back40::soapbox

    
    why bother?

    Why, so greedo American executives can send what's left of our
    manufacturing and other blue-collar jobs there?  I'll bet they
    left a blank space in the NAFTA documents to plug Cuba in at
    a later date.
    
    Chris

       re .0:
       
       Long overdue.

    Don't US companies generally have more profits working in countries
    they are *allowed* to work in versus the ones they can't?  By this I
    mean open up the borders, go in, and economically exploit them like you
    have the opportunity to do in so many other places.  Let's not forget
    the many countries that have had questionable political/human rights/
    etc practices that the US have had 'relations' with (the exact phrase
    escapes me).  
    
    I'm sure Castro is no saint, but taking the example of Eastern europe
    if you open the borders (bring down the 'wall' so to speak) the
    democratic/capitalist way will eventually (usually quickly) follow.  
    
    Castro isn't long for this world, start the process now.

>     re .0:
>       
>       Long overdue.

	Hardly! Here is a leader of a country openly hostile to the US and
	wanting to launch nukes in our general direction. Follow that up
	with decades of subversion in central and south america and the caribean.
	The man continually dumps on his own people, pushes them out on rafts
	to their peril, empties his prisons into other countries.

	He has done nothing to demonstrate a desire to improve relations
	so what motivation should we have in persuing this goal.

	You don't make nice with the animal that would just assume bite 
        your hand off.

	Doug.

    For a lot of industries, moving jobs to countries like Cuba just isn't
    cost effective, unless you're a producer of twisted pieces of metal or
    or broken plastic parts or something like that.

    
    
       re.5
    
    
       We've had full diplomatic ties for years with countries like
       Peru, Chile, El Salvador, The Phillipines (Ferdinand Marcos)
       ....no nukes but not big on human rights either. What about
       the PRC?? They've got nukes and share missile technology
       with Iran and Pakistan,......not big on human rights either
       and one day,....could possibly try to take over Taiwan,..
       ....we're "friends" with them. Why not Cuba?
    
    
       Ed

       
       What would you expect the man to do?
       
       In 1961, the US tries to overthrow Castro -- is it any surprise
       that a year later he welcomed the Soviet missiles?   
       
       As for the treatment of the Cuban people, Castro is among the more
       benevolent of Central American leaders: by any evaluation, he's a
       lot better than some of the fine individuals whom the US has
       propped up recently in El Salvador, Haiti, Panama, and elsewhere.
       The Cuban economy has gone to hell primarily because of the failed
       policies of communism and (very) secondarily because of the US
       boycott; before Castro, though, the Cuban economy mainly consisted
       of a few wealthy tobacco farm and hotel owners who paid their
       bribes to F Battista, and thousands of dirt-poor workers.  Small
       wonder that Castro came into power and continues to enjoy the
       support of most of his people.
       
       The US antipathy towrd Castro is not because he's any threat to
       the US (once the missiles were gone, Castro was no more a threat
       to the US than is Grenada), but because of the political noise
       made by people who (1)haven't heard the news that the Soviet Union
       isn't there any more or (2)left Cuba when Castro came to power
       because they were among those who'd been gladhanding Battista and
       sucking the country dry.  Now if you think these fine Cuban
       patriots are Freedom Fighters, please ask yourself what they were
       doing during dictator Battista's reign, and why they are so strong
       in their support for the right-wing dictatorships in places like
       El Salvador.
       
       Castro is no hero or angel, and he certainly is no democrat;
       however, he's no better or worse than dozens of others with whom
       the US has normal relations.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

    <--- I do believe that is what Mr. Topaz meant to say. And well said it
         was.

While there may be many countries which have poor human rights records which
maintain diplomatic relationships with the US, none of them have threatened
the US, none of them actively pursued the spread of communism in this 
region, or established a relationship during the cold war with our adversaries
and allowing their land to be a jump point for the undermining of democracy 
or the USA in this region.

No, they are not a threat. No, they are not the worst to be had. But they have 
been openly and often aggresively hostile to this country. They allow their
people to exit via rafts for political gain.

They are not like other countries in these regards.

Again, if they want progress in our relations with them, let them make some
significant first moves.

I don't particularly care who is the freedom fighter and who is the thief. I'm 
talking about the actions and behaviours of the current government of
Cuba. The rest of that diatribe was noise.


Doug.

    Now wait up there a minute!   If we make up with all our enemies, we'll
    only have each other to hate.....oops....too late.

Hey, we've buried the hatchet with Vietnam, and they actually beat us
in a war, err conflict, err police action, whatever. Far easier to
corrupt than to conquer. Would certainly lower the price of fine
Havana cigars.

Castro has been a thorn in the side of American government
for the last 30 years.  He thumbed his nose at the US and
never looked back - and that behavior drove U.S. leaders
crazy.

I agree with Mr. Topan.  The time has come to normalize 
relations with Cuba.  In fact, it's way overdue.  

There is a large and well-organized voting block which vigorously opposes
any reconciliation with Castro.

/john

    
       | The US antipathy towrd Castro is not because he's any threat to
       | the US (once the missiles were gone, Castro was no more a threat
       | to the US than is Grenada), but because of the political noise
       | made by people who (1)haven't heard the news that the Soviet Union
       | isn't there any more or (2)left Cuba when Castro came to power
       | because they were among those who'd been gladhanding Battista and
       | sucking the country dry. 
    
       re-thinking cuban policy seems prudent, given that castro 
       is on his way out.  however your characterization of the cuban
       refugees is an overstatement.  castro is an anochronism who 
       should be on display at the smithsonian, presuming he could
       survive the wrath of his own people.
      

    
      Yeah, and his beard is a mess.
    
      bb

    
    > Hey, we've buried the hatchet with Vietnam...

    You say that like it's a good thing!  GAK!
    Inviting an enemy in to your house and turning your back on him is not
    a smart idea!   IMNHO, YMMV

    So, Dan, you don't trust Canadians, Mexicans, English, Japanese,
    Italians, Germans, Koreans, Navaho, Sioux.......

    
    You just can't trust those Canadians.
    
    

    
    I wouldn't trust me.
    

       re .20:
       
       You don't.

    
    Good thing too.
    

    re.12
    
    
    "we" ????
    
    
    must be a mouse in your pocket

.23

Sore losers always bear grudges.

>He thumbed his nose at the US and
>never looked back - and that behavior drove U.S. leaders
>crazy.

Actually, I don't think they GAS.

> Hey, we've buried the hatchet with Vietnam, and they actually beat us

  Yes, after significant progress in political cooperation was extended 
  and exercised by the Vietnam government. And they were never a threat to us,
  we were the threat to them.

>     So, Dan, you don't trust Canadians, Mexicans, English, Japanese,
>    Italians, Germans, Koreans, Navaho, Sioux.......

  There is always room for reconciliation when both sides recognize, accept, and
  conclude their conflicts. I'd love to see Castro get behind the mic and tell
  the world it was wrong to want to nuke the US, it was wrong to encourage/force
  a mass exodus into the gulf on rafts, it was wrong to release their prison 
  population for expulsion into the US or other countries, and on and on ...

  When he takes the correct steps, then perhaps we can talk. 
  We owe him nothing.

  Doug.

.25

>Actually, I don't think they GAS.

Oh?  Well then perhaps you can explain what the Bay Of Pigs
invasion was all about under JFK?  Or all the ridiculous 
"neutralization" of Castro ideas which spewed forth from
the CIA?  

Those mass migrations from Cuba to Miami started during
Carter's administration - his open door policy - when Castro 
called his bluff and began sending his "undesirables" to 
the U.S.  Did that not rankle American leadership?  Oh,
I believe it did.

    As Mr. Covert pointed out, there's a large block of voters (can you
    say Cuban-American) who still detest Castro.
    
    Heck, if he's such a prince now, why did his daughter defect?  She
    indicated last week she had no desire to see him (and I believe
    she lives in NY).  I think she led one of the anti-Castro rallies
    when he arrived.
    
    I watched an interesting special a few months back on a group of
    Cuban-Americans, various engineering types who already have blue-
    prints drawn up to repair/replace the infrastructure in Havana
    and other parts of Cuba that have almost totally broken down.
    They were working on plans for new water system, sewer system,
    electric and telephone systems.  I got the impression they're just
    getting ready to move in when he croaks; they see no need to suffer
    any loss of life trying to overthrow him.
    
    
    
    

    .0> Isn't time that the U.S. government restore full diplomatic ties
    
    No.  Full diplomatic ties are a privilege reserved to nations with whom
    we maintain strong relationships and who are interested is maintaining
    strong ties with us.  Fyfe is correct that Castro has hardly made any
    effort to address our concerns over expropriated property, human rights
    for his dissidents, and his past support for destabilizing guerilla
    movements elsewhere in the hemisphere.  Cuba does not deserve full
    diplomatic ties until they begin to address such concerns.
    
    > and lift the trade embargo against Cuba.
    
    Yes.  The trade embargo is not supporting *any* US interests other than
    those of the Cuban exiles in Florida who still want Cuba's government
    forcibly brought down.  This is quite demonstrably not in our interests
    at all, as it would provoke yet another mass migration from a point
    much closer than Haiti.  Our interests clearly favor stability over
    idealogical reactionaryism in Cuba.  To that end, establishing trading
    ties will improve their stability and provide a basis for further
    dialog.
    
    DougO

    .17 then i guess we'd better give the boot to the British, Germans,
    Japanese, Italians and Russians... 
    
    i think the Cuban enemies of the U.S. are probably not the majority of
    the people of Cuba. We know for a fact the thousands here in the U.S.
    certainly are not. We know that thousands in Cuba certainly are not.
    
    the leading analysts believe that Castro is not close to being ousted.
    in fact, they state they opposite. the general view is that if there
    is a serious intent to normalize relations, we'd better begin speaking
    with Fidel now. 
    
    Castro is about as much a military threat as Bermuda. 

       re .28:
       
       Your first paragraph is a major-league non-sequitur.  Do you
       propose that the criterion for maintaining full diplomatic ties be
       a mutual interest in maintaining strong relationships (the 1st
       part of the paragraph), or that the criterion have something to do
       with human rights and/or support for guerilla movements (2nd
       part)?
       
       If it's the second bit, then I assume you'd insist on immediately
       recalling our ambassadors to El Salvador, China, Argentina,
       Russia, and more then a few others.
       
       In fact, we'd be put in the extraordinary situation of having to
       break diplomatic relations with ourselves.

    The Cuban people welcome visitors with open arms.  It is a great
    destination for those with the ability to travel their independently
    like on a boat.  The hospitality is reportedly first rate though the
    facilities, amenities and supplies may be a little lacking.  The
    military threat is inconsequential at this point though I think they
    would put up a bit more of a fight than the Bermudans :-).  The issues
    are more deep rooted bitterness over what Castro did to the Batistas,
    their supporters, suspected supporters, etc.  Thousands of Cubans fled
    because they rightfully believed they would be jailed or simply
    disappear.  No different than any of our fine South American friend's
    regimes with the exception of which side of the politcal fence they are
    on.  The embargo is an anachronism.  The U.S. should normalize
    relations, slowly, with conditions.  
    
    Brian

    
    I once viewed a videotape made by an aquaintance during his Cuban
    vacation.  While he had a great time, it was interesting to note the
    ubiquitous "fully-dressed-men-on-the-beach-in-very-hot-weather", who
    would always turn their backs to his camera.
    

>Did that not rankle American leadership?  Oh,
>I believe it did.

I stand corrected. While the US could care less about Cuba, Fidel has certainly
been pulling our chain for decades ...

Doug.

    i remember watching a film clip of FC when i was very young (in the
    60's) showing FC handing his cigar to someone, taking aim and
    executing a prisoner, being handed back his cigar and laughing
    as he walked away.
    
    now that i think of it, that was really something unique to see on the
    television back then.

    .34  are you sure that was Castro?  Not that I believe he'd
         be incapable of such behavior, but it just doesn't seem
         to be his style.  And on film, yet.  

    
    	Maybe the camera guy told FC that the camera wasn't on at the
    	time.
    
    	Stinkin' liar, eh?
    

    Seems more the style of an Amin or a Duvalier, not Castro.

    
    I've never confused Amin with Castro.
    

    
    	I did once ... filled my crankcase with 4 quarts of Amin.
    
    	Ran like crap.
    

    Boyz!  Must you rathole in a serious topic!!
    Shame on you!  

    
    <head hung in shame>
    

    there, there.  now repeat after me:  Cuba, Si!  Castro, No!

    
    Quebassy, Castrono!
    

    Blues, blues, got the mid-week overtime blues.

    Other than this allegedly being "the right thing to do" and "it's
    time", what specifically does the U.S. stand to gain from this?
    
    Chris

    american brand name recognition...nikes, levis, mickey D's...
    population with one of the highest of these...the cubans.

    
    > i remember watching a film clip of FC when i was very young (in the
    > 60's) showing FC handing his cigar to someone, taking aim and
    > executing a prisoner, being handed back his cigar and laughing
    > as he walked away.
    
    Is this someone you want to have diplomatic relations with?
    

    Dan, what would you know about relations, diplomatic or otherwise?

re: .48

Well, he's read a book about...  No, he's ordered a book about...
No, he's going to order a book abou...  No, he can't be bothered.

\john

    it was FL. i can still close my eyes and see it. made quite an
    impression on young kid.

    
> Well, he's read a book about...  No, he's ordered a book about...
> No, he's going to order a book abou...  No, he can't be bothered.
    
    aaahhh \John, I think you mean Jack Martin.  I know we look alike,
    but...
    

i think my new contacts are too tight.

between this and my other big blunder, you see why i don't note often.

:-)

\john

    > Your first paragraph is a major-league non-sequitur.  Do you propose
    > that the criterion for maintaining full diplomatic ties be a mutual
    > interest in maintaining strong relationships (the 1st part of the
    > paragraph), or that the criterion have something to do with human
    > rights and/or support for guerilla movements (2nd part)?
    
    The former.  But you misread the latter; it is by addressing our
    concerns over specific issues that Cuba can demonstrate its willingness
    to develop and maintain a strong relationship with the US.  The two are 
    not unrelated, as you seem to think.
    
    DougO

    
    
    .0 Yes
    

    
    
    
    .45 
    
    
    
    1) Another Vacation spot that Europe and Canada has been enjoying.
    
    2) Less boat people to process regularly because less economic
    refugies.
    

    
    
    .45
    
    
    Oh ya..The Republicans will stop funding Radio-Free Cuban even though
    the television Broadcasts have never been seen in cuba except for one
    weekend when Popeye cartoons weren't jammed.
    
    

Clinton mulls U.S. response to Cuban shootdown of planes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Feb 26, 1996 09:39 a.m. EST) -- As the Clinton administration
weighed its response to the downing of two civilian planes by Cuba, U.S.
officials said today they doubted the pilots survived the attack.

A government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The
Associated Press it is highly unlikely anyone survived since witnesses saw
the planes disintegrate.

Earlier, NBC News suggested that Cuba might have captured one of the downed
pilots. Reporting from Havana, NBC quoted a Cuban foreign ministry statement
claiming evidence the planes entered Cuban airspace and that a pilot was in
custody.

But in a later report, NBC quoted sources who said the pilot in question may
have been a Cuban spy who had infiltrated the same organization that
operated the downed planes. The spy probably was recalled to Cuba because of
the crisis, NBC said.

The State Department had no immediate response to the reports.

In another development, U.S. intelligence officials said the air traffic
control tower in Havana had warned the pilots they were in danger. The
officials said the downed planes, and a third that returned safely to
Florida, may have entered Cuban airspace.

Russia expressed regret over the loss of life but suggested flights near
Cuban airspace may be provocative.

"A question arises about the goal of such flights within the Cuban airspace
and in the vicinity of it," Russian foreign ministry spokesman Grigory
Karasin said. "Whether we want it or not, this becomes a provoking factor."

President Clinton is considering how the United States should respond to the
incident amid talk of tougher trade embargoes on Capitol Hill and by
Republican presidential candidates.

Clinton's national security advisers gave him a lengthy memo Sunday evening
that lists a range of options he could consider. Secretary of State Warren
Christopher declined to reveal the options, but said the United States will
"make clear to the Cubans that this violation of international law will not
go unanswered."

The United States believes the planes, operated by a Florida-based group
that flies off the Cuban coast in search of possible refugees, were in
international air space when they were shot down Saturday. Four people
aboard the two small planes are missing.

The incident pushed Cuban-American relations to the fore just two weeks
before the presidential primary in delegate-rich Florida. It also brought a
period of relative calm between Washington and Havana to an abrupt end.

Before the incident, the United States and Cuba were cooperating on refugee
matters. Cuban leader Fidel Castro had made a successful visit to the United
Nations in New York, and restrictions on travel, financial, air and
telephone links between the two countries had been eased.

After the attack, the administration instructed Madeleine Albright, U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, to request an emergency meeting of the
Security Council, which met behind closed doors Sunday night.

"Our position is that (the planes) were in international air space and the
Cubans knew it," Albright told reporters after the 90-minute meeting in
which a top CIA official presented evidence to support the U.S. contention.

No decision was made Sunday on the U.S. request that the United Nations
condemn the incident as an unlawful use of force, but several ambassadors
said they were deeply concerned about the use of force against unarmed
civilian planes -- regardless of whether they were in Cuban or international
air space.

Among punitive actions Clinton could consider was a reversal of the decision
that freed Cuban Americans and others to contact family members in Cuba by
telephone and send them money.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates seized on the incident as
evidence that Clinton is soft on Castro.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said Clinton should come out in favor of
tightening embargoes against Cuba, "instead of siding with Castro in
opposing tougher sanctions."

One of Dole's rivals for the GOP nomination, Pat Buchanan, said U.S. fighter
planes should patrol international waters off Cuba. If Cuban planes attack
planes in those waters, "I would shoot the Cuban planes down," Buchanan
declared.

Another GOP hopeful, former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, said the
incident "should be one more reminder that fooling around with Castro as
Bill Clinton has been doing is the wrong policy."

Senior administration aides said at least one of the group's three planes
entered Cuban air space at some point before the shootdown. That plane
returned safely to Florida.

The aides said that, in violation of international law, the Cuban jet that
shot down the two planes did not make an effort to signal impending danger
to the pilots, such as wagging its wings. Nor did it try to escort the
aircraft from the area before requesting permission to fire, the aides said.

"Cuban explanations of why they took the actions they did are neither
plausible nor acceptable," Christopher said. "We've told the Cubans over and
over again that they should act with restraint in these situations."

On Capitol Hill, the attack "definitely changes the dynamics of what is
going on" with pending legislation to expand the Cuban embargo, said Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., a Cuban-American who represents a heavily Cuban
district in Miami.

The "Libertad" (Liberty) bill ensures that a country could not resell any
Cuban products, such as sugar, in the United States. It also cuts aid to
Russia to the extent that it supports an electronic intelligence-gathering
facility in the island nation and orders the administration to try to block
Cuba from becoming a member of international financial institutions.

Ros-Lehtinen predicted that after the Cuban "act of terrorism," a tougher
House version of the bill would prevail over a more moderate Senate version.

"Fidel Castro probably cast the deciding vote in passing new legislation,"
added Rep. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J. "It's no-holds-barred now."

    My best Clinton voice...
    
    "HEY this is great cuz now I can punish Castro and it will make me look
    like JFK...my idol even though he was a supply sider and is credited
    for the greatest tax cut in US history..."

    actually Jack, as obvious as the response may seem, the administration
    understands how sensitive this and will move deliberately on a decided
    response.
    
    'ole Patty B. wants to simply blow them out of the sky.

    Weren't these guys dropping propaganda leaflets?

    Isn't that considered an act of war?

    
    >Weren't these guys dropping propaganda leaflets?
    
    Weren't these guys over international waters/airspace??
    
    >Isn't that considered an act of war?
    
    I would think so... in light of the above...
    

    They set a precedent by bombing Havana more than once with leaflets.
    If the government felt they were a threat I believe they would have just
    cause to splash the planes. Just because they escaped to international
    air space doesn't protect them from the wrath of a country.

    I am no supporter of or Castro or Cuba, but these guys provoked them. They 
    were asking for it.

    They were also told by the U.S. State Dept. that their actions were
    provocative and could possibly end up in tragedy.  It is not like they
    weren't aware of their actions.  Though I find their courage somewhat
    admirable, I am having a hard time mustering a lot of sympathy for them.  
    
    Brian

    
    re: .62
    
    
    So.... on our "War on Drugs", we should splash every and any plane we
    identify as carrying drugs and or delivering them to the good old
    USA... right??
    
     I mean... think of the precedent! 
    
    "Just because they escaped to international air space doesn't protect
    them from the wrath of a country."
    

I heard a guy on the Beeb say that according to international law, you have 
to present an imminent danger in order for it to be legal to be shot down.
Since the planes were apparently unarmed, Castro's guys broke international
law -- surprise, surprise.

    
    	Leaflets have very sharp edges.
    
    	You could poke an eye out on those things.
    

    What of the leaflets did not separate in mid air and fell as a ream of
    paper?  That could hurt someone.  

    Andy, you're comparing drug smuggling to dropping propaganda leaflets.
    Dropping those leaflets in a sovereign country is and act of war. 

    What would you consider reasonable if say some planes from Cuba flew
    into US air space and dropped pro-Communist propaganda on Washington DC
    a few times. Would you be so upset if the Air Force splashed those
    planes once they were in international airspace?

    
    RE:66
    
     Anything that will cause paper cuts has been outlawed by the U.N.
    
    Dave

    boy, Clinton got really "tuff" with Castro...I'm sure he's shaking in
    his boots.
    
    just another convenient photo-op, imho.

   Castro's cowering in the sugar cane fields as we speak.




 Jim

    Clinton is using this as an election gimmick. It's rather nauseating.
    Tough talk, blah blah blah, when it's clear that Cuba was provoked by
    these cowboys. 

    you guys are a riot. no matter what happens to any candidate today they
    will be accused of using it as an "election gimmick" and people will
    become sick to their stomachs. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
    
    back to the topic... regardless of where the planes were they violated
    international law, period. the UN, after an all nighter, penned a very
    rigorous denounciation of Cuba's actions. The act of Cuba was nothing
    short of murder. anyone who cannot see that is blind or terminally
    biased. 
    
    the next step would've been a military response which would have been 
    inappropriate and very unpopular internationally.
    
    so, what should've have been the response.

    The response from Cuba should have been a protestation, sabre rattling,
    send up a few jets and harrass them etc.  They should not have shot
    down the alleged propagandeers.  That said, the pilots were warned
    repeatedly that there was no way anyone could gauge how Cuba would
    react.  They overreacted and now some are dead.  I agree Cuba should
    have used restraint.  When you whack the bees nest with a stick, you
    should expect to get stung.  
    
    The U.S. has no choice but to put on a show of righteous indignation. 
    I am sure the State Dept. couldn't really care these guys were playing
    footsie with Cuba but if something happened, they could use it to their
    advantage.  This whole thing was quite avoidable though.  Hopefully it
    will not lead to any further loss of life directly or indirectly.
    
    Brian

    
      So Castro is bad news.
    
      bb

    Well, now that Cuba is alone in the world of course the UN penned some
    frightfully witty stuff. Brian hit the nail on the head, it's righteous
    indignation. Still though, had the roles been reversed, everyone would
    be applauding the US Air Force for splashing those Communist scum.

    bah.

    
    
    >bah.
    
    Bull...
    
    The "Rules of Engagement" are very explicit...
    

Where is Rangel, Dodd, and all the other suck-ups that treated 
Fidel like a king when he was in NY last year?

Stangely quiet.

daryll

    Problem is that China and Taiwan are what the USA and Cuba are to us.
    Different reasons but it stands to reason if we invaded Cuba, China
    would do likewise.

    The fact is, if the US had really cared about these civilian lives,
    they would have shut down their little anti-Fidel operation. Instead,
    they secretly supported it knowing that these guys would end up in
    trouble. Now these guys are dead and the US has found some leverage to
    exact some more revenge on Castro.

    Why doesn't the US invade Cuba and get it all over with?

    Not really Jack.  We never had any claim on Cuba as a territory.  Our
    citizens did not flee the U.S. to go to Cuba except on gambling
    junkets.  We have no reason to despise Cuba/Castro except for their
    socialist agenda and nationalization of U.S. assets snatched after the
    revolution.  We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by invading 
    Cuba.  Cuba has no assets we need or want nor do we have any rightful 
    claim to them.  Our feud with Cuba is an anachronism, a pitiful
    reminder of the foolishness of the cold war.  This will change when
    Castro finally dies and a more moderate leadership takes over. 
    
    China/Taiwan is quite a bit different.  China has a lot to gain
    economically from retaking Taiwan.  They want Taiwan intact though.  A
    smouldering island will not produce much in the way of cash.  
    
    Brian

    No, I believe it was really Jack.

    fact is Mr. Richardson, the U.S. could not "shut down" what this
    group was doing because they were breaking no U.S. law.
    
    i heard exactly the opposite of the statement you make about the U.S.
    secretly supporting their activities. they did not support it nor would
    they offer assistance to them in any way. in fact they openly did not
    support the group or its activities.

    Well, I heard that the state dept. has designs to seize Cuban assets to
    compensate the families as well as fund their anti-Castro radio
    station. I would call that open support, wouldn't you?

    -1 no way. i call that reparations which is one of the stipulations
       in the administration's response. 
    
       imo it's not even close to support. it's justice.

	Now, I haven't been following this string, so maybe this has been
addressed already. Did any US radar show that the planes that were shot down
were indeed in international waters, and not in the Cuban air space? 

	While I think it is wrong to shoot them down at anytime, I wonder if
the planes were where they said they were.


Glen

    So, funding a radio station is not support it's reparations? Boy, do
    you have red white and blue glasses on.

>Did any US radar show that the planes that were shot down were indeed
>in international waters, and not in the Cuban air space? 

Not even the Cubans claim that the planes that were shot down were in
Cuban air space when they were shot.

However, even if they had been in Cuban air space, it is a violation
of international law to shoot them down.

/john

    
      They entered Cuban air space, dumped leaflets, and ran away to
     international waters, where the Cuban fighters chased them and
     killed them outright without warning or signal.
    
      bb

re .89:

I thought _one_ plane entered Cuban airspace but didn't reach land, and the
other two (the ones shot down) never reached Cuban airspace.  The leaflet
dropping was previous flights.

    #1
    Chip
    How do you KNOW that the anti-Castro groups were/are not breaking any
    laws?  YOU don't know for sure.  {BTW, I do not condone what happened
    to the planes; I think these freedom fighters are very courageous and I
    just hope they don't get anothe Jack kennedy response from Clinton.}
    
    That is why what I think should have happened is exactly what Reagan
    did with Libya.  A surgical strike into numerous strategic spots would
    really cripple Cuba/castro without much, if any, loss of civilian life. 
    Clinton doesn't have the gonads, nor any other American President faced
    with the Cuba problem, do effectively deal with that situation as it
    should have been delat with 30+ years ago!

    So, what's #2?

    duh, I forgot   :-)

    You've eaten too many meals that were cooked in aluminum pots I see.

U.S. says Cubans knew they were shooting down small planes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS (Feb 27, 1996 6:45 p.m. EST) -- The United States released a
transcript of Cuban communications today that U.S. Ambassador Madeleine
Albright said showed the Cubans joyfully fired at two small American planes
last Saturday.

"The target is in sight, the target is in sight," the transcript shows one
of the MiG pilots radioing back to his headquarters. "It's a small
aircraft."

"Copied. A small plane in sight," the ground controller responded.

A few moments later, the MiG pilot identified his target as a Cessna 337.
The controller then said the pilot was "authorized to destroy." After
firing, the pilot shouted "we took out his balls."

"I was struck by the joy of these pilots in committing coldblooded murder,"
Albright said as she released the transcripts. "Frankly, this is not
'cojones' (testicles in Spanish). This is cowardice."

Albright released the transcript shortly before the expected arrival of
Cuban Foreign Minister Roberto Robaina, who has come to present his
country's case to the United Nations.

The Cubans claim the planes violated their airspace and were part of a
series of provocations by Cuban exiles in league with the U.S. government.

Before dawn today, the Security Council adopted a statement saying it
"strongly deplores" the attack Saturday, in which Cuban MiGs shot down the
planes belonging to Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-based group of Cuban
exiles. The four Cuban-Americans aboard are presumed dead.

The United States originally asked the 15-member council to say it
"condemns" the attack as an unlawful use of force and a threat to
international order. None of that wording made the final statement.

Cuba's acting ambassador, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, defended the attack
before the council on Monday.

"International peace and security is not what is threatened today,"
Rodriguez said.

"It is the peace, sovereignty and security of Cuba which have been
endangered for more than 35 years because of ... those in a position of
strength who promote action against my country," he said.

Cuba claims the planes were shot down over its territorial waters, which the
United States denies. In the past, the exile group has rescued Cuban
refugees from the waters off Cuba and has dropped leaflets over Cuba
criticizing Fidel Castro's communist government.

A Cuban Foreign Ministry spokesman called the resolution "a total
miscarriage of justice" that lacked "any clear condemnation of the United
States as the clear originator of this sequence of events."

U.S. officials allowed the planes to take off from Florida despite knowing
they would violate Cuban airspace, the spokesman, Miguel Alfonso Martinez,
said in Geneva.

The Security Council presidential statement was accepted unanimously,
although without a formal vote. It carries less weight than a formal council
resolution, which would have required a vote.

It cites international covenants banning the use of weapons against civilian
aircraft and asks the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal
to conduct an immediate investigation.

Through that request, U.S. officials hope to lay a legal foundation for any
future sanctions that might be imposed against Cuba.

But council diplomats said that apart from the Americans, there was little
or no support for punitive actions against Cuba.

The United States had pressed the council to act on the statement without
delay.

"It is important to the United States to get action on this heinous crime,
and to have the international community make clear this is a major breach of
international law," Albright said. "It is a criminal act."

As current holder of the rotating council presidency, Albright at one point
threatened to keep the council in session until dawn, if necessary,
diplomats said.

Council members beat that deadline by just three hours -- adjourning about
3:45 a.m. today.

U.S. shows radar reports to back claim on Cuba
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters

WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department, aiming to prove its case against
Cuba, on Tuesday showed reporters classified radar reports that it said
showed two civilian planes were in international waters when shot down.

The reports consisted of more than a dozen black and white maps from the
Domestic Air Interdiction Corps Centre at March Air Force Base, Calif., and
are a "composite of lots of platforms providing lots of information to a
central electronic system," one official said.

The second plane of the Cuban exile group Brothers to the Rescue that was
hit was struck from behind when it was nine nautical miles north of Cuban
territorial waters and flying at maximum speed away from Cuban territory,
said the official, who interpreted the reports for reporters on condition of
anonymity.

The United States maintains the two downed planes were outside the Cuban
12-mile territorial waters limit but officials acknowledged a third plane
from the group, which was not attacked, strayed some three nautical miles
into the Cuban zone.

The United States claims Cuba knew it was shooting down unarmed civilian
planes.

In retaliation, President Clinton on Monday announced a series of actions,
including support for tightening the embargo against Cuba and a halt in
charter flights to the island nation.

"What every source agrees on is that the two aircraft that were shot down
were outside and were never inside" the Cuban zone, the official said.

Asked why the third plane that did penetrate Cuban airspace was not
attacked, the official said Cuban Air Force MiG jets "saw them and not him
apparently."

    i only know what i've heard on the news and formed an opinion from the
    UN's reaction. 
    
    how does anyone know they did break any laws. nothing that has come out 
    supports this position. are you missing something or am i?
    
    i didn't hear about the gov't supporting the radio station. what is
    your source and what agency has been providing the money? just
    interested. all government officals interviewed certainly did not
    give that impression.

From:	US4RMC::"[email protected]" "David Tilbury - Sun UK" 28-FEB-1996 08:06:51.78
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	Transcript of Cuban pilots' attack

(AP) -- Transcript of radio traffic relating to Saturday's downing of
U.S. civilian Cessna aircraft by Cuban air force MiGs. The transcript
was released in English by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine
Albright.

Cessna 1 (to Havana): Good morning, crossing parallel 24 (about 55
miles north of Cuba), right about now we're going to remain in this
area 5 hours.

Havana (to Cessna 1): Verify code and responder.

Cessna 1 (to Havana): With 1224. (The responder code transmitted by the
Cessna assists Havana in identifying it on radar.)

Havana (to Cessna 1): In what zone are you going to do your work?

Cessna 2 (to Havana): Responding 1223. Crossing 25th parallel in 5
minutes.

Havana (to Cessna 2): Received.

Cessna 3 (to Havana): Good afternoon, greetings. We are crossing
parallel 24, please, in 5 minutes and we will be in the area around 3
or 4 hours. We are responding 1222, 500 feet.

Havana (to Cessna 3): Thank you.

Cessna 3 (to Havana): (Pause) For your information, the area of our
operations (is) to the north of Havana today. So we will be in your
area in contact with you. Give him cordial greetings from Brothers to
the Rescue, from its president, Jose Basulto, who is talking.

Havana (to Cessna 3): Sir, be informed that the zone north of Havana is
activated, (garble) you, danger behind 24 north parallel.

Cessna 3 (to Havana): We are aware that we are in danger each time we
cross the area to the south of the 24th but we are willing to do it as
free Cubans.

Havana (to Cessna 3): Thanks, copy that information.

Cessna 3 (to Havana): Thank you very much.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Taking off on a 90-degree heading?

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): On a 90-degree heading.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Right.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Altitude?

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Altitude 1,700.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Are you below the cloud cover?

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Come again?

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Are you below the cloud cover?

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): There are no clouds here.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): OK. Keep on searching below you on the
right.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): OK, on the right, copied.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Continue on a 90-degree heading.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): OK, we are continuing.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): We see three aircraft.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): OK, there are aircraft moving here; they
stay together and then they separate.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Right.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Work over there on the left, there is an
aircraft coming from the north.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): We are going to explore 30 kilometers
(about 18 miles) to the north of Havana. To the right (broken up).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Copied.

Ground control (to MiG-29): (Transmission blocked by static).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Negative.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): On a heading of 70.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): (Static).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): 270, OK.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Give me some pointers, I do not have it in
sight.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Right.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Are you still turning left?

MiG-29 (to Ground control): Come again?

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Are you turning to the left?

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Copied.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): On a heading of 70 north of Havana.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): What is your altitude?

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): 200.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): To the north?

Ground Control (to MiG-29): (Transmission too weak).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Roger, the target is north of Baracoa
(pilot is referring to Playa Baracoa).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): On a heading of 270.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): That's right, a heading of 270 to your
(fades).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Roger.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Go ahead.

Ground control (to MiG-23): (Transmission weak). Heading of 330 we're
going to look to the north.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): 330 to the left.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Right.

MiG-29 (to MiG-23): There is a very large vessel there.

MiG-23 (to MiG-29): I just saw it.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Turn on your radar.

MiG-29 (Ground Control): Connected.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Connect the radar and everything is
complete.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Connected.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Look for it beneath you.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Beneath end to the north of Playa Baracoa
about 30 kilometers.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): On parameters.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): What is its altitude?

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): 200.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Understood.

MiG--29 (to Ground Control): 1500.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): The targets are at an altitude of 200-300
meters (650-1,000 feet).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Roger.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Look for them beneath you.

Ground control (to MiG-23): Climb to 1,000.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): 1,000.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): (Transmission blocked) kilometers to the
target.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Roger. Altitude 1000.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): (Acknowledges).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): 1,500.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Begin to turn to your right to a bearing of
30 degrees.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): You mean pilot 08?

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Pilot 13.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Roger 30 degrees to the right.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): I have it below me, it's a large vessel.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): You have a target 10 degrees to your left,
at a distance of 12 kilometers (seven miles).

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Negative, it is a large vessel that I have
here to the left.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Keep searching.

MiG--23 (to Ground Control): Roger.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Turning left 270 degrees.

MiG-23 (to Ground control): What I have to the left right now is a
large passenger ship.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Do you have the target I told you about in
front of you?

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Right now it's to the left.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Roger.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Don't you see the target?

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Come again?

Ground Control (to MiG-23): You have the target at 30, I have it in
front of you.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Right. What I have is a vessel.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Roger, we are going to continue on a little
further.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): The vessel does not have a globe (balloon)
on the outside?

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Negative, nothing is seen on it.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Roger.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Do you have pilot 08 in sight?

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Yes.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): And this is for 08, connect the UVD.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Roger, connecting UVD.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Connected.

Ground control (MiG-29): Continue searching in that zone.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): The target is north of Sante Fe at a
distance of 25 kilometers (15 miles).

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Roger right now it's on a course of 180, at
an altitude of 1,000.

Ground control (to MiG-29): Come again?

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): On a course of 180 at an altitude of
1,000.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Roger.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): With another launch in sight on 90 degree
heading to the right.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): You have it to the left 30 degrees distance
(garbled).

Ground Control (to MiG--29): Do you copy me?

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Come again?

Ground Control (to MiG-29): The target (cut off).

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Look (stops).

Ground Control (to MiG-29): (Finishes sentence) to the left.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): OK, the target is in sight. It's a small
aircraft.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Copied, a small aircraft in sight.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): OK, we have it in sight, we have it in
sight.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): The target is in sight.

MiG-23 (to MiG-29 and Ground Control): The target is in sight.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): In sight, in sight.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Roger, (blocked by static).

MiG-23 (to Ground control): It's a small aircraft, a small aircraft.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): It's white, white.

MiG-23 (to MiG-29): I'm going to climb to an altitude of 2,000.

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Color and registration of the aircraft.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): The registration also.

Ground Control (to MiG--23): What kind and color?

MiG-23 (to MiG-29): It is white and blue.

MiG-29 (Ground Control): White and blue.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): The white and blue small aircraft, at a low
altitude, a small aircraft.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): Give me instructions?

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Instructions.

MiG-23 (to Ground control): Listen, authorize me (stops).

MiG--29 (to Ground Control): We are going to give it a pass, we are
going to give it a pass.

MiG-23 (to MiG-29): If we give it a pass, it will complicate things.

MiG-29 (to MiG-23): We are going to give it a pass.

MiG-23 (Ground Control): Talk, talk, (imperative mood).

Ground Control (MiG-23): Tell me if you are receiving me.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): I have it in lock-on, I have it in
lock-on.

MiG-23 (to Ground Control): We have it in lock-on. Give us
authorization.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): It is a Cessna 337.

MiG-23 (to MiG-29): That one, that one (shouting). Give us the
(expletive).

Ground Control (to MiG-23): Give us the (expletive) (still shouting)
that we have.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Authorized to destroy.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): I'm going to fire at it.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Authorized.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Authorized to destroy it.

MiG-29 to (Ground Control): We already copied, we already copied.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Authorized to destroy it.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Where is it? In front?

Ground Control (to 08): Authorized to destroy.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Already.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Authorized.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): Roger, that was already received.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): (Garbled) now.

Ground Control (to MiG-29): Have you already fired?

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): First launch.

MiG-29 (to Ground Control): We gave him balls; (repeated twice)
(screaming).

MiG-23 (to MiG-29): (Screaming).

MiG--29 (MiG-23): We took out his balls (shouting).

MiG-23 (to MiG-29): Wait, wait, look and see where it fell.

MiG-29 (to MiG-23): We gave him (shouting) (one word garbled).

MiG-29 (to MiG-23): Mark the place where we took it out. It's
(garbled).

MiG-23 (to MiG-29): This one won't mess around any more.

    Chip:
    
    try reading "between the lines"...that's where the answers are!

    
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| SNARF! 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    According to all of the press releases and statements by U.S.
    officials, the civilian pilots did not break any U.S. laws.  So far it
    appears everyone agrees what they were doing was not to smart. 
    Surgical strikes on Cuba over this incident would be even dumber. 
    The course of action being taken is appropriate.  The cuban government 
    should be paraded through the global media as barbaric murderers,
    sanctioned and whatever.  The time for employing surgical strikes in
    Cuba is long gone.  
    
    Brian

And so, the Cubans had established radio contact with the small planes
and never radioed that that should leave or be shot down, nor did the
military craft give any warning of impending danger or intent ...

And some would conclude that Cuba was somehow justified in its actions!

Last nights news programs talked about a double agent having just returned
to Cuba this week and reporting his finding on the group that flies the
airplanes. This shootdown may have been an attempt at killing the leader
of that group.


What a world ....

    
    
    >And some would conclude that Cuba was somehow justified in its
    >actions!
    
    
     Well... some Canadians at least...
    

    re; "read between the lines" ya right. thanks for the facts.

Some Miami based Cuban-American leader appeared in one of the CNN shows
(Crossfire?), and boy he sounded like a real fool.

Q: What were these planes doing in the Cuban air space ..?

A: Isn't a crime against humanity to shoot down 2 unarmed civilian planes...?

Q: Wait.. wait I am not saying it's not a crime. My question is why were they
   heading towards Havana, what were they doing inside Cuban airspace without
   Cuba's permi .... (interrupted) ?

A: Are you siding with criminal Castro..? Are you against 2 innocent victims,
   against 2 innocent Americans who were killed by this dictator ?

Q: I am not siding with any criminal. Shooting down is unjustifiable. No 
   questions about it. Just pls answer my question with Yes or No. How do you 
   justify an American plane entering Cuba illegally, and dropping leaflets 
   with anti-govt.. (interruptted)

A: (shouting loudly) Two innocent Americans are killed.. and you are somehow
   trying to justify it... Its against international laws to kill unarmed
   civilian planes....blah.. blah..

    I never ever said it was justified. I did see it as understandable,
    these guys were provocative.
    
    Cuba was wrong, and so were those so called freedom fighters.

    The little question and answer note it a good indicator of my point of
    view. Guess it takes a Canadian to see things differently.

    detatched retinas don't count... :-)

    where are all of the conspiracy theorists when you need them?

    The Trilateral Commission is behind this whole incident.  They are in
    cohoots with the BATF, who- being taken to task here for jackbooted
    assaults on American citizens- are looking for other avenues to take
    their jackbootedness.  Cuba, the country folks love to hate, fits this
    bill quite nicely.  
    
    Under the guise of being UN soldiers, the BATF will travel to Cuba with
    military hardware and let their jackbootedness hang out big time.  It
    is all practice for more assaults here at home, and they won't get into
    any trouble because currently Cuba is in deep international doo.
    
    The Trilateral Commission has a much larger, more ominous plan in all
    this, which is still hidden.  But they had the CIA steal Cuban planes
    and shoot down the Americans, specifically to cause a great
    international uproar (and so Clinton can practice at performing his
    "righteous indignation" speeches and such) so no one else will care
    when the BATF reduces select civilian persons to ash (neatly crushing
    all evidence that they were there with tanks).  They'll probably target
    the cults first.
    
    So now you know the truth.

    Now we're getting somewhere!

    send the BATF, the TLC and the Alien Abductors to Havana...

    #1
    Chip:
    
    if you can read between the lines, the force behind these groups is
    quite apparent.
    
    #2
    Brian:
    
    A surgical strike a Fidel's cabana, a strike at their port or comm
    center, etc. would be VERY effective

I don't see how blowing up the guys house accomplishes much.

Or taking out the comm port, neither, too.

TTom

    Any aggression on our part over this would be disastrous.  If it were a
    military plane that was shot down, maybe but not civilian aircraft. 
    There is no upside in taking direct action against Cuba.  It certainly
    would not make us the great liberators.  
    
    Brian

    Reagan did it with Libya over the civilian boat massacre.  Worked good
    for him then would work for us now.

    What's to stop Cuba from striking back at U.S. targets only 90 miles
    away? Libya was too far away to be a threat to US civilians.

    Khadafi made an arbitrary claim to waters in the Gulf of Sidra not 
    recognized by international law.  This was marked by the "Line of Death"
    They sent planes out and we shot them down, in recognized international 
    airspace.  
    
    Libyan financed terrorists hijacked a U.S. plane in an unprovoked
    manner.  In addition to other terrorist acts against U.S. civilians
    abroad, it was warranted IMO to go in and carry a violent message that 
    state sponsored terrorism would be dealt with in kind.  It may have 
    been the disco bombing that actually set this in motion, either way 
    the acts were aggressive and unprovoked.  We bombed Baghdad as a 
    warning in retalitation, justifiably I might add.  
    
    The fellers flying the planes near and over Cuba had been warned,
    repeatedly that they were being foolish and provocative.  They should
    have known the risks.  This is not, IMO, a reason to put in harm's way
    any U.S. military assets, most importantly personnel.  If Cuban ex-pats 
    wish to play footsie with Fidel, great.  It is also not our fight.  
    
    Brian

    those pesky cuban ex-pats, they'll do anything.
    surely they expected retaliation in some form.

Err, last time I checked, Baghdad was still in Iraq.
There is a city called Tripoli in Libya, though.

Little known fact: most people in Tripoli have wide feet.  It's because they
get stepped on by camels.

Since the end of cold war Cuba is not bothering America, except for the 
occasional flood of refugees now and then, which of course is being dealt with.

So shouldn't America let Cuba get on with its life by lifting the blockade..?

Tell me in what way in 1996 is Cuba a threat to America ..?

    Yup, you are correct.  I was looking at the map and saw Benghazi and
    got confused.  Tripoli it was. 

 .120 think how dangerous he'll be when he gets a TV.

    Imagine an 'Air Force' of thousands of unmanned, remotely controlled 
    Cessna's, flying in circles around Cuba, in International air space 
    of course.  They could fly banners with anti-Castro messages.  Do this 
    non-stop until the Cuban Air Force can't take it anymore.  When they 
    start firing, remotely send all the Cessnas toward Fidel's favorite
    hangouts.  It would be news if the Cuban AF mistakenly interrupted their
    tenacious leader's nap.

    Kind of like doing Whirly Twirlies in front of your Mother n Law to get
    her to move to her other daughters house?

    It worked eh?
    
    8^)

    .117
    
    If u think it's not "our fight", u r much too naive.

    sorry Ron, i just don't read it. even in between the lines. the U.S. has
    been actively engaged in improving the relationship up to this point. i
    just don't believe there was "much" support for this group or its
    activities.

    Chip:
    
    I'm going off-line with you on this subject.
    
    Ron

    Educate me Ron.  I dare ya'.  Help me understand why we should do
    anything other than piss and moan and call for sanctions.  How am I
    naive in this?  Jesse Helms is going to get his way with the Helms Bill 
    for allowing those that were financially hurt during Castro's regime 
    when he seized assets.  Who do you think will eventually end up paying 
    for that?  As usual, the lawyers will benefit the most.
    
    I do not like Castro and his regime.  I look forward to the day when
    Cuba institutes reforms and helps to bring further stability to the
    Carribean and we can stop spending money on keeping a p.i.a. dictator 
    under our thumb.  I do not believe that this last incident, as 
    unfortunate as it may be, warrants direct, military action on our part.  
    If any of the side allegations are true that we were somehow secretly 
    involved through the intelligence community or were providing funding to 
    these folks, shame on us for getting involved.     
    
    Brian

    Now the US is going to enforce its foreign policy concerning Cuba on
    everyone else. I'd rather see an invasion, frankly. Get it over with.

    What the US really should do is open trade, wide open. Let the Cubans
    taste the west and see that it is good. Let them make money, buy big
    cars and build estates. Castro can't fight something like that. 

> Castro can't fight something like that. 

 Castro can stop the importation of anything he wishes ...

    But he won't, it's good for the economy. That's the trap.

He'll let in only what he needs ... 

    So did the Soviet Union. So did East Germany.

Coast Guard sez they'll protect a flotilla of Cuban-Americans who plan to
hold a memorial service at the site of the shootdown.

Castro sez "cancel it."

/john

    
>    So did the Soviet Union. So did East Germany.
    
    Which fell for reasons having nothing to do with trade ...

    Actually trade probably did help the fall of the USSR and E ger. 
    Nothing like greed to get those old capitalist, democratic, and free
    market juices flowing.  

    
    Naw, bad central management and spending to much money is what got them
    in the end. Trade is the thing they need now to rebuild their economy.
    
    The rubble is worthless outside the USSR adn that is what killed them.
    
    Doug.

    Doug,
    
    this is where we have to disagree (again).  People who have no hope and
    nothing to look forward to other than a short miserable life are not
    the sorts that rebel.  People that can see something others have and
    want it are the sorts that will work toward, and even fight for a
    change in their existances.  
    
    Never underestimate the power of human greed and envy.  It rates right
    up there with fear of a vengeful diety, or strangers who might want
    more of something you have.
    
    meg

Clinton is now encouraging passage of a bill which will penalize foreign
countries and companies doing business with Cuba.

In particular, certain employees of foreign companies investing in Cuba
will not be permitted to enter the United States.

Also, U.S. assets of foreign companies which have invested in Cuba may be
seized in order to compensate Cuban nationals who have had their property
in Cuba seized by the Cuban government.

Needless to say, Canada is furious about this.

/john

    
      Now that you mention it, the leafs in here HAVE seemed a bit
     touchy lately.
    
      bb

    Yep, Ole Jesse H. was jumping up and down crowing "So long Fidel!". 
    Just what we need, piss everyone else off in the process of trying to
    needle a pissant dictator whose time has passed and whose popularity at
    home has never really waned.  If anything, this will help galvanize
    support for Fidel at home.  Canada should be p.o.'d and rightfully so.  
    They should not be held accountable for our little Carribean spat, IMO 
    etc.  
    
    Brian

    
    This is really stoopid.  What right have we got to penalize other
    countries because we're having a spat with a third country?
    

>      Now that you mention it, the leafs in here HAVE seemed a bit
>      touchy lately.

It's all those Ericsson telephone exchanges they have up dere, eh?

/john

    
    
    re: .143
    
    >If anything, this will help galvanize support for Fidel at home.  
    
    The support will of course be very vocal and media-based... What we
    won't see is the prodding by the pointy end of the AK-47's...
    

>    This is really stoopid.  What right have we got to penalize other
>    countries because we're having a spat with a third country?
    
Well, if I bought your ring from the thief who stole it, should you be
able to get the courts to make me give it back to you?

/john

    
    Not the same thing!
    
    

Oh.  Not the same thing.

When a dictator steals your ring, you can't seek to recover it.

I see.

Thems whats got the gold makes the rules.

    Well, Canada is going to protest big time, and so are a lot of other
    countries. I can't believe the US is going to piss off it's allies just
    because of spat like this. Egocentric America at its best.

    John, why should the U.S. gov't essentially apply RICO laws to foreign
    entities that are doing business with Cuba?  What responsibility do we
    have in aiding Cuban immigrants even though they may be naturalized, in
    reclaiming lost property?  I believe we have none.  If the U.S. wants
    to freeze Cuban owned assets in the U.S., fine.  We should not be
    penalizing our allies and trading partners by essentially sanctioning
    them as well.  
    
    Brian

    RE: .140  (Meg)
    
    WHile your statements are true in general, they do not apply 
    in the specific. Fidel controls the country. He controls what 
    his people hear and see, and what is available from the outside.
    There is no reason to think he could not maintain the environment
    that has kept him in power if the US allowed free trade with
    Cuba.
    
    The only thing lost would be Castros patriotic stand against
    US sanctions, and that would quickly be replaced by some
    other, perhaps deliberately contrived, conflict with the US
    (such as the downing of unarmed civilian aircraft).
    
    If you think Castro isn't capable of controlling his little
    world in an environment of free trade you are sorely mistaken.
    
    Doug.

    RE: Several back....
    
    Ron,
    
    I am seriously interested in why you believe we need to stomp on Cuba,
    hard.  I obviously do not agree but am willing to listen.  
    
    Brian

    Brian:
    
    We need to take this off-line, okay buddy!
    
    Ron

    No, no off-line! Off-line is bad. I hate that term so you need to
    action this on-line.

    Okay, send me mail.  I am seriously interested in reading your views.
    
    Brian

    
    
    Re. The Cuban incident.
    
    	I don't think it is justifiable for American tax dollars
    	be spent to support/protect a few exiled Cubans in their
    	protest against Castro. Did anyone have a tally how much
    	was spent last weekend by the CG for the boats and planes
    	to escort and watchout for 2 dozen Cubans. 
    
    	I don't understand what makes them so special. Furthermore
    	most of them, or their parents, from what I've read, fled 
        Cuba when the tin-pot dictator (can't recall his name) was
    	overthrown by Castro. At that time, life wasn't much better
    	either with the class system and inherent corruption.
    
    	Furthermore, if we can heal our relationships with the
    	Vietnamese, the Cummunist Chinese, the Red Army, the PLO 
    	over more important matters, why can't we just do the right
    	thing with Cuba? Seems like this is a case of US wounded pride
    	to me which the govt simply cannot overcome. 
    
    	

    {applause}

    RE: tin pot dictator = Batista

    Wannoor:
    
    The bottom line is that, like Gorbachev, a darling of the American
    liberal press is not having his feet held to the fire for the numerous
    human rights violations which have gone largely unreported in the
    American media.  Castro "stealing the government" away from Battissa is
    no better since Battissa was a slime also.  The people of Cuba haven't
    had a chance for the democratic rule "promised" by Castro since he sold
    out to the former Soviet Union and no American Administration for over
    the last 40 years has had the gonads t standup for the violation of the
    Monroe Doctrine.

    Heard a brief snippet on the radio wrt Cuba and Viet Nam becoming
    chummy.  Anyone have any details what this is about?  Yes, Jim, I'm
    sure there are, too. :-)

So, what's the legal situation for Americans who might be tempted to
read

	http://www.cubaweb.cu/

???

House sends Cuba sanctions bill to president
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Mar 6, 1996 6:03 p.m. EST) -- Propelled by a second determined
vote in Congress, legislation is on its way to President Clinton to increase
economic sanctions on Cuba and keep foreign investors away.

The House passed the Cuban Liberty Act 336-86 Wednesday, a day after the
legislation swept through the Senate 74-22. Clinton discarded past
objections to the bill after Cuba's Feb. 24 downing of two American civilian
planes and has promised to sign it.

The overwhelming congressional votes conveys a message that "no one in Cuba,
and no one in the rest of the world, should expect this embargo to be lifted
until there is democracy in Cuba," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
"There is no future for the Castro dictatorship. There are no deals."

Rushed through Congress in the anger that followed the plane attack, the
bill makes it impossible for the president to ease sanctions on Cuba without
an act of Congress. It also allows Cuban-Americans and others who lost
property since Fidel Castro took power in 1959 to sue foreign companies
making use of the seized property.

It also forbids entry to the United States of company presidents and
individuals who profit from confiscated property.

Canada and the European Union have protested that the provisions infringe on
their sovereignty. "Although the EU is fully supportive of a peaceful
transition in Cuba, it cannot accept that the United States unilaterally
determine and restrict EU economic and commercial relations with third
countries," the Europeans told the State Department.

Mexico, partner with the United States and Canada in the North American Free
Trade Agreement, said the bill violates international law and regional and
bilateral U.S. commitments. Its foreign ministry said Mexico and Canada
will, through NAFTA, "challenge the effects this initiative will have."

Lawmakers greeted such complaints with scorn.

"It is time for them to understand that we will not go merrily along while
they provide a lifeline to this communist just off our coast, who is in fact
a mortal enemy of the United States of America," said Rep. Gerald Solomon,
R-N.Y.

"For those who have said to me that we have insulted our allies with this, I
would say our allies have insulted us by not observing our embargo," added
Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla.

The House and the Senate passed the bill last fall in differing versions,
but until the planes were attacked they went nowhere. The administration and
the Senate opposed the lawsuit provision, and the House would not yield.

Clinton's reversal of his opposition last week assured the bill's passage.
He changed his position after lawmakers gave him authority to suspend the
litigation clause for six-month periods and set a $50,000 minimum on claims
that could be filed.

Democratic opponents accused both Clinton and GOP supporters of bowing to
the Cuban-American lobby in Florida, a key state in the president's
re-election bid.

"This bill has nothing to do with Castro. It has everything to do with our
friends and our voters in Florida," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

Sen. Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., Clinton's likely opponent in the
November election, spearheaded Senate efforts to pass the bill. He accused
the administration of being too soft on Castro in the past.

The bill also urges the president to seek an international embargo of Cuba,
unlikely when no other major economic power supports the U.S. sanctions. And
it authorizes the president to help Castro's democratic opponents and ties
aid to former Soviet states to their reducing help for the Castro
government.

Opponents argued that no embargo could work without support from U.S. allies
and that the bill will increase suffering of the Cuban people without
harming Castro. "It only gives Castro an excuse to be more repressive and to
justify his failed economic system," said Rep. Joseph Moakley, D-Mass.

Rep. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., a proponent, said the bill makes clear to
the Cuban people "that there is no reconciliation with Fidel Castro; there
is no compromise; it is time to bring the dictatorship to a close."

    Why don't they just invade Cuba and get it over with? Why bring Canada
    and the rest of the world into it?
    
    

Wednesday, March 6, 1996

Copyright � 1996 The Globe and Mail

Chretien finds allies in Cuba tiff with U.S.

ST. GEORGE'S, Grenada -- Prime Minister Jean Chretien has found allies in 
the fight against U.S. legislation that seeks to reach beyond America's 
borders to punish anyone who does business with Cuba.  "We're arguing on 
the question of the extraterritorial application of American laws," 
Chretien said as he met with leaders of 14 Caribbean countries.  "And it's 
a principle that is very important for the countries of the world, to make 
the Americans aware that we are condemning that."

In their communique Tuesday, the Caribbean leaders repeated their 
objections to the U.S. legislation.  "They expressed their strongest 
objections to the extraterritorial provisions of the bill which seek to 
apply United States domestic law to other countries," the communique said.

At the end of the two-day summit, Chretien said Tuesday the Caribbean 
countries had also asked him to find a way to help them speed the 
conviction of drug criminals in their overburdened courts.  "We don't know 
how it will be done but we offered our collaboration because we have the 
same system of laws in Canada," Chretien told a news conference.  Many of 
the Caribbean countries are transit points for drugs on their way to North 
American markets.

The U.S. legislation was designed to punish Cuba for downing two small 
planes operated by a Cuban exile group that, according to the Cubans, 
deliberately violated its airspace last month.  Companies from any country 
doing business in Cuba will face U.S. sanctions.  Their officials and 
employees could even be barred from entering the United States.

Still, Chretien was happy with the fruit of his discussions.  "By coming 
here and getting the support of the Caribbean countries it will add 
pressure," Chretien told a news conference.

In Washington Monday, Trade Minister Art Eggleton met with U.S. Trade 
Representative Mickey Kantor to deliver Canada's warning that it would 
regard any retaliation against Canadian companies under the proposed law a 
violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

But Kantor maintains that the United States is well within its rights to 
pursue anti-Cuba legislation that would punish trading partners such as 
Canada.  U.S. security laws take precedence over international pacts such 
as the North American Free Trade Agreement, he said.

Wednesday, March 06 1996

Copyright � 1996 The Globe and Mail

Canada assailed as Cuba bill passes

Chretien takes wait-and-see stand, but says U.S. legislation sets bad precedent

BY DREW FAGAN

Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON

With reports from Barrie McKenna and Susan Delacourt in the Ottawa bureau.  
Canada came under harsh attack yesterday as the U.S. Senate passed 
legislation aimed at forcing Cuban President Fidel Castro from power by 
squeezing foreign investment on the Caribbean nation.

Branding Canadian policy as no different from the appeasement pursued by 
British prime minister Neville Chamberlain with Hitler, Republican Jesse 
Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticized 
Western countries - specifically Canada - for maintaining trade and 
investment ties with Cuba and for refusing to join an economic embargo 
against the Cuban government.

Canada should learn from history about confronting tyranny, Mr.  Helms 
said.  "Neville Chamberlain was wrong .  . .  and Winston Churchill was 
right."

Senator after senator took the floor of the chamber to rail against the 
Castro regime before the bill passed 74 to 22 and was sent on to the House 
of Representatives for likely passage today.

Canada has more companies involved in commercial dealings with Cuba than 
any other Western country, according to a recent list compiled by the 
anti-Castro Cuban American National Foundation and distributed widely on 
Capitol Hill by the bill's supporters.

Mr.  Helms said that he is "sick and tired" of certain Canadian companies 
thumbing their nose at U.S. law by importing Cuban products and then 
shipping them to the United States for sale.

(Canadian officials said Mr.  Helms may have been referring inaccurately to 
Canadian sugar exports, which he sought without success to ban in this 
bill.  Canada imports sugar cane from Cuba but the sugar-containing 
products Canadian companies ship to the United States are not made from 
that raw sugar.)

"Let me say to our friends in Canada; you have become a part of what you 
condone," said Mr.  Helms, who is one of two chief sponsors of the 
legislation.  "By their advocacy in this matter and by their opposition to 
this bill, they are condoning Fidel Castro.  I suggest that they should be 
ashamed of themselves."

Prime Minister Jean Chretien played down the potential damage of the 
legislation.

"We have expressed our views.  It's a bad precedent that they are trying to 
pass in the United States at this time," he said said in Grenada, where the 
Cuban-U.S. problems were a key topic of discussion at summit talks between 
Canada and Caribbean commonwealth nations.

Mr.  Chretien, who talked to U.S. President Bill Clinton last week and 
rallied 14 Caribbean leaders this week in international protest against the 
legislation, said yesterday that Canada is not yet ready to talk about 
trade-retaliation measures.

"We want to see what kind of effect this law will have," he added, noting 
that most of Canada's protest is based on the principle, not the potential 
effect, of the anti-Cuba bill.

However, Mr.  Chretien also said yesterday that the United States should 
tread cautiously in its application of the bill, mindful of the 
international outcry against it and the potential violations of large, 
trading agreements such as the North American free-trade agreement and the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

"In the application of the law, we hope that the protests that are coming 
from around the world will (force) the Americans to be very cautious," he 
said.

"They're claiming that it's not against GATT, it's not against NAFTA. For 
the Canadian opinion, it's not following the agreement that has been signed 
(by the United States) in the World Trade Organization and NAFTA."

In Ottawa yesterday, International Trade Minister Arthur Eggleton said Mr.  
Helm's views were nonsensical and suggested that Mr.  Helms should mind his 
own business.  "We happen to think that engagement .  . .  changes things a 
lot faster than isolation."

As part of an effort to co-ordinate international opposition to the bill, 
Mr.  Eggleton met ambassadors of many of Cuba's other major trading 
partners yesterday, including European Community countries.

"There's a fairly wide body of opinion that suggests this is the wrong way 
for the United States Congress to go," he said.

Mr.  Clinton has pledged to sign the legislation once it passes the House.  
The bill, which was making little headway until a Cuban fighter jet shot 
down two civilian U.S. aircraft 10 days ago, has two particular provisions 
that Canada and other Western countries oppose.

One would allow Cuban Americans whose property on the island was seized by 
the Castro government to sue in U.S. courts any foreign company that now is 
exploiting their former property or assets.  Mr.  Clinton has the option of 
waiving that provision if he wishes.

Regardless of any waiver, however, the bill also mandates the U.S. 
administration to block entry into the United States of employees of those 
foreign companies alleged to be profiting from those expropriations.  
Family members may also be denied entry.

It is unclear how effective any enforcement of these provisions can be.  
Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd attacked both measures yesterday as 
unworkable, inimical to U.S. interests, and heedless of international law.

"Read the bill.  Read the bill.  This is unwise," he told his Senate 
colleagues.  "Why not take a few days and think about what we're doing here 
rather than jamming it through in the emotion of the moment?"

In particular, he said, the bill violates more than four decades of 
precedent regarding resolution of disputes about expropriated property.  It 
has always been done through government-to-government negotiations, Mr.  
Dodd said, and a country has never sought to solve the issue unilaterally 
by employing its own courts.  What is to stop Americans of Eastern European 
or Asian descent from now demanding like treatment?

Mr.  Dodd said he has received letters opposing the bill from some of the 
5,911 Cuban Americans who have filed claims regarding expropriated property 
with the U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.  They are fearful, he 
said, that the bill will stiffen Mr.  Castro's resolve and make it more 
difficult for them to get their property returned.

Furthermore, the bill will allow lawsuits only in instances where the 
expropriated property was worth more than $50,000 (U.S.) in 1959.  That 
means the majority of claims probably will be ineligible for court action, 
with the exception of claims by major business interests in industries such 
as mining, tobacco and alcohol production.

"It's the fat cats who will get the money, not you," Mr.  Dodd said, 
addressing the Cuban-American community.  "This legislation will come back 
to haunt us."

In addition, the bill "codifies" the U.S. embargo.  That means the 35- year 
policy can no longer be eased or eliminated solely by a decision of the 
White House.  Congress also would have to give its consent.

U.S. officials have said this step is unprecedented in U.S. law.  Previous 
embargos against countries such as Vietnam, or existing embargos against 
countries such as Libya, have never been made as difficult to overturn as 
this legislation on Cuba.

The bill also specifies about 20 steps a "transition government" in Cuba 
must take before the embargo can be scrapped.  The new regime must submit 
to national elections within 18 months of taking office.  Neither Mr.  
Castro nor his powerful brother, Raul, may play any role in a future 
government.  The right to own private property also must be guaranteed.

"Our policy toward Cuba represents national passion over national interest 
and is an effort to get electoral votes in Florida," said Democratic 
Senator Paul Simon.  "This policy is absolutely self-defeating."

But such concerns were viewed as excuses for inaction by the bill's Senate 
supporters, which included almost all Republicans and more than half of all 
Democrats.

The legislation is not directed generally at the major trading partners of 
the United States, argued Republican Senator Paul Coverdell, but only at 
specific foreign companies that prop by the Castro regime by supplying it 
with hard currency for the right to operate on the island.  "I hope they 
are chilled by this."

Still, it was clear that many proponents of the legislation also resent the 
unwillingness of countries such as Canada to toe the U.S. line, and that 
they expect the bill to force governments to reconsider their Cuba policy.

"This bill says, 'It's time to choose,' " said Republican Senator Judd 
Gregg.  "You have to choose between a democracy like America .  . .  and a 
Cuban government operated by a dictator."

    Canada would be best served by letting this matter be settled between
    the US and Cuba and keeping its nose outta our affairs.

>>    Canada would be best served by letting this matter be settled between
>>    the US and Cuba and keeping its nose outta our affairs.

Nope. You got it all upside down! Its the US which is meddling with Canadian
affairs, by punishing Canadian companies which do business with Cuba.

Even ignoring the fact the US has zero supporters for its latest
salvo against Cuba, I guess all this is going to be detrimental to the US.

	.. all this to please a bunch of cuban-amercians ..??

    -1 i think it's a case of "all this" in an attempt to convey a message
    that ignoring international law and murder will not be tolerated. i
    think it's a little deeper than you've summized.
    
    fyi, i haven't yet formulated an opinion of what is a sufficient
    response to Cuba's actions. i have, however, taken a position that
    Castro has absolutely no redeeming value as a human being.

>Nope. You got it all upside down! Its the US which is meddling with Canadian
>affairs, by punishing Canadian companies which do business with Cuba.
    
    How does it punish them? What form will the sanctions take? If a
    company which does business in Cuba doesn't do business in the US, how
    will it be sanctioned?
    
    Personally, I think it's reprehensible that any company would do
    business with Cuba as long as Castro continues to violate human rights
    in a manner that makes China seem like the ultimate humanitarians. How
    can anyone support a government that incarcerates people simply for
    supporting different political beliefs?
    
    Companies which do business in Cuba are directly or indirectly
    supporting the Castro regime, in so doing they share responsibility for
    the crimes of the Castro regime. If you know someone's going to buy a
    gun and use it to commit crimes, you don't give them the money to do
    so- even if they promise you a big "return on investment". It's blood
    money. It seems that some companies prefer profits to human rights.
    
    Frankly, I think that Clinton should be soliciting world consensus to
    join the blockade, but given his lack of leadership in this area, this
    response is not entirely unreasonable.
    
     FWIW- having recently been in Florida, sentiment among the Cuban
    community is to send in the military and forcibly remove the Castro
    regime. The tearful tales of men who come in the night and remove
    family members on a permanent basis are enough to chill the soul of
    anyone. Castro's not just a bearded swaggering innocuous figure; he's a
    mean, vindictive and brutal opponent of the most basic human rights who
    remains in power only by the repressive actions of his military regime.
    Cuba deserves freedom from this tyrant.

>>    -1 i think it's a case of "all this" in an attempt to convey a message
>>    that ignoring international law and murder will not be tolerated. 

Whenever the US has stood for a just cause (eg. Gulf War/Bosnia/Somalia), it
did have a bunch of like minded supporters (aka England), but how come this
time around no one is rallying behind US attempt in conveying "a message". 
Rather it has pissed of some - Canada, Carribeans .. this list is sure to grow.
    
>>    Castro has absolutely no redeeming value as a human being.

 Why? because this individual is autocratic, undemocratic, violates basic human
rights..? In this same token, take a look at some of the US close buddies -
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China ..? Here its the entire Govt, not just an 
individual who needs to conveyed "a message"

/Jk

>    Personally, I think it's reprehensible that any company would do
>    business with Cuba as long as Castro continues to violate human rights
>    in a manner that makes China seem like the ultimate humanitarians.


Personally, I probably agree with you, but I'm not so sure that that justifies
the US government in enacting sanctions against firms based in other countries
because they choose to trade with Havana. It strikes me as the international
equivalent of government imposed prayer in school or forcing states to adopt
federal guidelines on drug penalties. It's the "I don't care what your opinion
is on the matter- I'll make life miserable for you if you don't do as I want
you to" attitude. Strongarm techniques may be justified against Cuba, but
it's not becoming of us when we try it on Cuba's trading partners.

>the US government in enacting sanctions against firms based in other countries
>because they choose to trade with Havana. 
    
     It depends how the sanctions are imposed. As far as I'm concerned,
    there's nothing wrong with saying to a foreign company "if you do
    business with our enemy you can't do business with us" and I don't
    think that the proposed sanctions even go that far.

>    Personally, I think it's reprehensible that any company would do
>    business with Cuba as long as Castro continues to violate human rights
>    in a manner that makes China seem like the ultimate humanitarians. How
>    can anyone support a government that incarcerates people simply for
>    supporting different political beliefs?

Huh?  China doesn't jail dissidents?  China has a better human rights record
than Cuba?

    China is certainly no great outpost of humanitarianism, and I'll
    concede that I probably pushed the point a little far. ;-)

    Helms et al. are fools.  The U.S. should not drag everyone else into this
    through this bill.  I would not be surprised if the economic backlash
    on the U.S. was worse than whatever the sanctions are on Cuba.  Who
    ends up paying for this?  I do, again.  I am with Chip on this.  I
    haven't formed an opinion on what we should do, yet.  

    Invade them and get it over with, don't drag the whole world into
    this. The U.S. did it in Grenada, why not Cuba? Fly a few sorties to
    knock out it's military targets and then seize Havana.

Cuba bill ready for president's signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Mar 7, 1996 10:03 a.m. EST) -- U.S. allies wasted little time in
attacking a tough new Cuba sanctions bill that awaits President Clinton's
signature, saying it violates existing free-trade agreements.

Clinton has promised to sign the Cuba Liberty Act, which Congress revived
after Cuba shot down two American civilian planes off the Cuban coast last
month. The bill scored an easy 336-86 victory in the House Wednesday, a day
after sailing through the Senate, 74-22.

The bill gives Americans who have lost property in Cuba since Fidel Castro
came to power in 1959 the right to sue foreign companies that benefit from
that property. Foreign investors dealing with confiscated property are
barred entry into the United States.

The European Union, in a statement to the State Department, said the lawsuit
provisions "risk leading to legal chaos." It said another clause that bars
sales to the United States of products using Cuban sugar violated the GATT
accord and "the EU will react to protect all its legitimate rights."

Mexico's foreign ministry said in a statement Wednesday that Mexico would
work with Canada to overturn the act, saying it was incompatible with
provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Mexico will use, jointly with Canada, the legal remedies offered by the
Free Trade Treaty to challenge the effects this initiative will have on
trilateral commerce," the statement said.

Some members of Congress agreed. "Now we are telling our allies that we have
no respect for their own sovereignty," said Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. "Our
arrogance is such that we don't care what some of our allies say."

But supporters of the legislation said other countries are going to have to
choose between doing business with Cuba or the United States.

"They know what they are getting into," said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., the
House sponsor of the bill. "I have no sympathy for those people who want to
buy confiscated stolen American property to give Castro the hard currency
that he needs to stay in power."

To overcome administration objections to the lawsuit provision, the final
bill allows the president to waive the right to sue for six-month periods.
But Clinton would have to make that decision shortly before the November
election. "From now to November everything is safe," said Cuban-American
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. "We are confident that the way we set it up
it's going to be difficult for him" to suspend the lawsuit provision.

Several Democrats tied White House and GOP enthusiasm for the bill to the
election and the importance of winning strongly anti-Castro Florida. "This
bill has nothing to do with Castro. It has everything to do with our friends
and our voters in Florida," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

The bill urges the president to go through the U.N. Security Council in
seeking an international embargo on Cuba. But the three-decade-old U.S.
embargo on Cuba has little international support, and prospects for new
participants are dim.

In the past year, before the planes were shot down, the Clinton
administration made several gestures, such as permitting direct charter
flights, to increase contacts with the Cuban people. Congress put language
in the bill to ensure that there would be no such moves toward
reconciliation in the future.

The bill codifies all existing presidential orders on sanctions, requiring
an act of Congress to eliminate or modify them.

"No one in Cuba and no one in the rest of the world should expect this
embargo to be lifted until there is democracy in Cuba," said House Speaker
Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "There is no future for the Castro dictatorship; there
are no deals."

So now its Canada, Carribean nations, European Union, Mexico ...  

All these nations may comply with the US embargo only because it makes plain
economic sense, but in the end the US stands to lose a lot, upsetting its allies

    
      But we are quite willing to lose economically, so long as Castro
     also loses.  Just as Americans have been willing to absorb costs
     in Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, with no return at all except
     the feeling of satisfaction that comes from doing God's work.
    
      We should make Castro and the Cubans who submit to him suffer,
     because it is the right thing to do.
    
      bb

    |the feeling of satisfaction that comes from doing God's work.


    Pardon me whilst I projectile vomit until my shoes fly out of my mouth.

>All these nations may comply with the US embargo only because it makes plain
>economic sense, but in the end the US stands to lose a lot, upsetting its allies
    
    They're going to be POed at us because we won't do business with them
    if they give aid and comfort to our enemy? TFB.

>    Pardon me whilst I projectile vomit until my shoes fly out of my mouth.

One of the consequences of keeping your feet there.

    Economic effects shouldn't be too significant.  Depending on application, 
    the legislation allows for bureaucratic harassment of innocent 3rd parties,
    without really impacting Castro in any significant way that I can see.  
    Since the downfall of the Soviet Union, US politicians haven't had much 
    opportunity for chauvinistic "with God on our side" belligerence; Cuban 
    shooting down of those planes has provided an excellent election-year 
    opening. 
    
    -Stephen

    >Depending on application, the legislation allows for bureaucratic 
    >harassment of innocent 3rd parties,
    
     For small values of innocent.

    re "innocent 3rd parties":
    
    from .166:
    
    "Regardless of any waiver, however, the bill also mandates the U.S. 
administration to block entry into the United States of employees of those 
foreign companies alleged to be profiting from those expropriations.  
Family members may also be denied entry."

    

    How nice.

    This bill/about-to-be-law is stupid.
    
    Bob

    .171 so, your measure of value is getting everyone to line up behind
         you for a cause or position? don't hold your breath.
    
         re; Castro having no redeemable value... what's your point with
         your examples? i can't remeber China shooting down americans.
    
         what's your take on the what the response should be?

The following appears to be an unjustified exaggeration:

    "Regardless of any waiver, however, the bill also mandates the U.S. 
    administration to block entry into the United States of employees of those 
    foreign companies alleged to be profiting from those expropriations.  
    Family members may also be denied entry."

Here is the relevant section of the bill.  Those people affected by it, IMHO,
_should_ be denied entry to the United States.  Receivers of stolen property
are criminals, IMHO.

                          TITLE IV--EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ALIENS
          SEC. 401. EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF ALIENS WHO HAVE
                            CONFISCATED PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS 
                            OR WHO TRAFFIC IN SUCH PROPERTY.
            (a) GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION- The Secretary of State shall deny a
          visa to, and the Attorney General shall exclude from the United
          States, any alien who the Secretary of State determines is a person
          who, after the date of the enactment of this Act--
                (1) has confiscated, or has directed or overseen the
              confiscation of, property a claim to which is owned by a United
              States national, or converts or has converted for personal gain
              confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United
              States national;
                (2) traffics in confiscated property, a claim to which is
              owned by a United States national;
                (3) is a corporate officer, principal, or shareholder with a
              controlling interest of an entity which has been involved in 
              the confiscation of property or trafficking in confiscated
              property, a claim to which is owned by a United States 
              national; or
                (4) is a spouse, minor child, or agent of a person excludable
              under paragraph (1), (2), or (3).
            (b) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section, the following terms 
          have the following meanings:
                (1) CONFISCATED; CONFISCATION- The terms `confiscated' and
              `confiscation' refer to--
                    (A) the nationalization, expropriation, or other seizure
                  by the Cuban Government of ownership or control of property--
                        (i) without the property having been returned or
                      adequate and effective compensation provided; or
                        (ii) without the claim to the property having been
                      settled pursuant to an international claims settlement
                      agreement or other mutually accepted settlement
                      procedure; and
                    (B) the repudiation by the Cuban Government of, the
                  default by the Cuban Government on, or the failure of the
                  Cuban Government to pay--
                        (i) a debt of any enterprise which has been
                      nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise taken by the
                      Cuban Government;
                        (ii) a debt which is a charge on property
                      nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise taken by the
                      Cuban Government; or
                        (iii) a debt which was incurred by the Cuban
                      Government in satisfaction or settlement of a
                      confiscated property claim.
                (2) TRAFFICS- (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
              person `traffics' in confiscated property if that person
              knowingly and intentionally--
                    (i)(I) transfers, distributes, dispenses, brokers, or
                  otherwise disposes of confiscated property,
                    (II) purchases, receives, obtains control of, or 
                  otherwise acquires confiscated property, or
                    (III) improves (other than for routine maintenance),
                  invests in (by contribution of funds or anything of value,
                  other than for routine maintenance), or begins after the
                  date of the enactment of this Act to manage, lease, 
                  possess, use, or hold an interest in confiscated property,
                    (ii) enters into a commercial arrangement using or
                  otherwise benefiting from confiscated property, or
                    (iii) causes, directs, participates in, or profits from,
                  trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) by another
                  person, or otherwise engages in trafficking (as described 
                  in clause (i) or (ii)) through another person,
              without the authorization of any United States national who
              holds a claim to the property.
                (B) The term `traffics' does not include--
                    (i) the delivery of international telecommunication
                  signals to Cuba;
                    (ii) the trading or holding of securities publicly traded
                  or held, unless the trading is with or by a person
                  determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be a
                  specially designated national;
                    (iii) transactions and uses of property incident to 
                  lawful travel to Cuba, to the extent that such transactions
                  and uses of property are necessary to the conduct of such
                  travel; or
                    (iv) transactions and uses of property by a person who is
                  both a citizen of Cuba and a resident of Cuba, and who is
                  not an official of the Cuban Government or the ruling
                  political party in Cuba.
            (c) EXEMPTION- This section shall not apply where the Secretary 
          of State finds, on a case by case basis, that the entry into the
          United States of the person who would otherwise be excluded under
          this section is necessary for medical reasons or for purposes of
          litigation of an action under title III.
            (d) EFFECTIVE DATE- 
                (1) IN GENERAL- This section applies to aliens seeking to
              enter the United States on or after the date of the enactment 
              of this Act.
                (2) TRAFFICKING- This section applies only with respect to
              acts within the meaning of `traffics' that occur on or after 
              the date of the enactment of this Act.

    Bottom line is this:
    
    In direct violation of the Monroe Doctrine, human rights and US
    sovereignity, Cuba attacked innocents.  There is no defense on
    attacking innocents, just like there was no defense on Sadam attacking
    innocents in Kuwait 5 yrs ago.  Of course then, all the allies which
    are crying out loud today were behind the US spilling their blood so
    that their sacred oil supply wouldn't be threatened.  Today, they're
    crying the blues because their mighty profits with dealing with the
    blood thirty communists in Cuba are threatened.  And they accuse the US
    of being ARROGANT!?!?!!?

    How about when innocents of the ANC were being killed and jailed, how come 
    the U.S. wasn't doing God's work then?
    
    Darn, they have cheap diamonds there don't they? Oh, nevermind.

    
    And the members of the ANC aren't caucasian.
    
    Remember the MOVE debacle?  Hardly any outcry, compared to Waco.
    

>    How about when innocents of the ANC were being killed and jailed, how come 
>    the U.S. wasn't doing God's work then?
    
Are you claiming that the U.S. didn't participate in the sanctions against
South Africa?

I think you'll find that action by the U.S. was instrumental in bringing
the South African government to the bargaining table, after which point
the U.S. government began to relax sanctions.

/john

    It took a while and they were most reluctant. Even more so than the UK.
    The UN had a lot to do with the sanctions against South Africa, once
    the U.S. clout was added, it brought them to the table.

    If the U.S. had current financial interests in Cuba, this whole thing
    wouldn't have happened. This is about revenge, and now that the Soviets
    are gone, Castro is isolated. Now he's gonna get it, and everyone else
    has no choice but to play along.

    Glenn:
    
    "If the US had financial interests in Cuba, this whole thing wouldn't
    have happened"???  How can u make that statement?  It's only BECAUSE
    our financial interests of Americans and the threat to our sovereignity
    itself that we care so much about Cuba.  A sore on your face is going
    to get a lot more attention than the boil on your back.  
    
    Besides, the US *IS* the UN; without it it is just a paper tiger.  It
    is our financing and logistic support which props up the UN. 
    Therefore, our pressures against the government brought SA around.
    
    The rest of the world is unhappy about the Cuba situation since their
    financial interests with the human rights violating, blood thirsty
    communist regime are in danger.
    
    A more correct statement on your part would be: "If the US had a
    President in the last 35 years which had the gonads to stand up to
    Castro, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.
    
    TYVM

    i think Ron is right on. but let's face it, the U.S. government has a
    reputation (in the 20th century) of being a little slow on the drawa
    and missing many historical windows of opportunity to either minimize
    a potentially disasterous situation or eliminate it all together.
    
    history, in fact, repeats itself all the time.
    
    Chip

    What would be the U.S. reaction if Canada passed a law concerning China
    which affected U.S. companies doing business there with assets that had
    been seized from Chinese Canadians?

    "Shame on Canada for imposing its foreign policy on us. They have no
    right, it goes against international law, blah blah blah."

    What if the rest of the world went around passing such laws?
    International trade would grind to a halt.

    Why didn't the U.S. lobby the UN and get everyone on board on this
    thing? Certainly some sort of measures could have been agreed to.
    But, no, the U.S. is flexing its huge muscles and is forcing its
    foreign policy on the rest of the world. We'll just have to tow the
    line.

    Jesse Helms seems to think Cuba is poised for world domination and has
    compared our prime minister to Neville Chamberlain placating to Nazi
    Germany. This guy is obsessed with Castro and is ignorant of history.

    Calling the folks in the planes innocent is stretching things a bit. 
    At the very least, their actions were provocative.  Did the deserve
    their fate?  Most likely not.  I believe Cuba overreacted, big time.   
    
    Regarding the Monroe Doctrine, I don't think it applies at this point. 
    Cuba stands by itself, without any other foreign powers trying to
    project their influence into this part of the world.  The Sovs. left. 
    Even in the beginning, weren't the revolutionaries homegrown?  Any 
    assistance Cuba receives from third parties is no different from what 
    other folks in the region receive except for maybe there is less of it.  
    	
    I agree somewhat with the sentiments expressed by Glenn.  This is our
    quarrel, we should finish it.  The proposed sanctions are yet another 
    embarassment put forth by Helms.  
    
    
    Brian

    
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| A Cuban SNARF. 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    
     re, .198 - that's different.  You Canadians aren't a superpower,
     so you don't get to do God's work.  We will let you chase away the
     odd Spanish fishing boat, however.
    
      bb

    {grovel}
    
    
    
    8^)

What do you mean by "innocents" ..? These downed pilots deserved what they
got!.. You don't go about throwing anti-govt leaflefts in the capital ..

Heck atleast they were downed in Cuban waters. Had a Cuban tried this over Miami
US wouldn't hesitate to go after and get him even in Havana! And then the
Amercian press would justify saying, we have the right to go anywhere to capture
an international terrorist!

>These downed pilots deserved what they got!.. 
    
    Doubtless there's more to the story than we're getting, but in any case
    I find the punishment for their crime to be excessive...

    re: .203
    
    You must be getting different news than I.  The information I got was
    that the aircraft that were shot down did NOT do any leaflet dropping
    on Havana and were shot down in INTERNATIONAL airspace.
    
    Bob

	These planes were part of the same team "Brothers to the rescue", which
did this heroic act of dropping leaflets couple of months ago. They were
lucky that they were spared then. Castro should have hunted them down right
then, but instead raised an objection with UN. I guess Cuba just showed 
patience and restraint then which turned out to be a big mistake, because I 
guess these "Brothers to the rescue" thought Cuba will never muster the courage
to take any military action against Amercians!

Regarding International or Cuban waters there are conflicting reports by 
independenat American sources. But all of them agree that atleast 2(?) planes
(the ones which escaped) were in the Cuban waters just before the attack!

-Jk

    .206
    Let's they were temporarily in Cuban airspace{that has yet to be
    Proven}. They leave and were in InTernational airspace when they were
    shot down{1st illegal move; once they Are in international airspace,
    there was no provocation to shoot them down}. On top of that, they were
    CLEARLY unarmed civilian aircraft and YOU JUST DON'T SHOOT DOWN
    CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT!
    There is no legal means that warranted Cuba from killing these
    innocents...NONE!
    
    This is just ANOTHER gross violation of human rights, but the
    INternational Community only Cares about their Dollar.

    The lord works in mysterious ways.

    okay jaywalker... i think we should be gunning down illegal aliens as
    they cross the border too. well, maybe just the women and children.
    
    God only knows how you are justifying murder, but hey, it's your world.
    
    

>>    CLEARLY unarmed civilian aircraft and YOU JUST DON'T SHOOT DOWN
>>    CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT!

How do you define a Civilian aircraft ..? Something which has no weapons/bombs?

An aircraft remains civilian only as long is does what it is supposed to do -
transporting civilians/goods! If it does anything which is considered to 
harmful to the countrys security, it loses its "Civilian" status - your milage
may vary! Taking a Delta Airlines, Boeing 747 filled with hundreds of harmless
passengers, flying low over Kremlin and taking pictures, wouldn't make it
an harmless Civilian Aircraft!

    If it is owned and operatied by civilians, it is civlian.  These were
    civilian aircraft.  The possibility exists that they may have been 
    operated recklessly but they were still being used by civilians.  

    -1 righto Brian. dey is civvy aircraft, military aircraft and
    commercial aircraft. ain't seen one morph yet...

    
    	What's to stop a 747 from dropping a bomb on someone?
    

    A bay door

     Dole seeks prosecution of Cuban Air Force pilots

     By Jill Zuckman, Globe Staff, 03/08/96

     MIAMI - The Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, came to the heart of
     Little Havana yesterday and declared that it is time to "indict, try
     and convict the murderers" of the four Cuban-Americans shot down in
     planes off Cuba's shores last month.

     Dole also sent a letter to President Clinton yesterday, urging that
     Attorney General Janet Reno immediately seek indictments of capital
     murder for the Cuban Air Force pilots responsible for the Feb. 24
     attack.

     Dole was campaigning here in advance of the Super Tuesday primary, in
     which six Southern states, including Florida, will vote to choose the
     Republican nominee for president. Dole, however, kept his focus on
     Clinton, rather than on the two major remaining GOP candidates, Patrick
     J. Buchanan and Steve Forbes.

     Dole was greeted at the Centro Vasco restaurant with enthusiastic
     chants of ``Viva Bob Dole!'' Later, he laid a wreath in honor of the
     pilots in Domino Park, where a memorial honors those who died during
     the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was flanked by two men who had fought at
     the Bay of Pigs, Col. Juan Montes and Col. Johnny Lopez.

     Dole, a veteran of World War II, was surrounded by Cuban-Americans who
     lauded him for his own service for democracy.

     ``To die for liberty is to live,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a
     Florida Republican. ``Bob Dole is here today and he knows a little
     about what that sacrifice is about.''

     Dole said that the four American pilots, part of a private group called
     Brothers to the Rescue, may well have hastened the end of Fidel
     Castro's dictatorship. ``It will happen and it will come,'' Dole said.
     ``In a Dole administration we will not cozy up to Castro.''

     This story ran on page 16 of the Boston Globe on 03/08/96.

    I am afraid Bob Dole is milking this for political purposes
    only...really fouling up the whole Cuba issue with this rhetoric...the
    problem remains that NO US administration has ever "dealt" with Cuba
    the way they promised on the campaign trail (rep and dem alike)

This is an irresponsible cheap "playing for the gallery" gimmick by Dole. 

This man as Lamar said, really has no ideas. He just waits for Clinton to make
a move and criticises him, on every issue!

A recent issue of "Mad" had a nice strip about how predictable he is.

(just mine after reading this comic strip)

Clinton: I will send our troops to Cuba to get rid of this evil regime and
         restore democracy, and I will do it now!

Dole: This is another example of playing with American lives. We don't want
      a Vietnam now. Cuba is not a threat to us in the post cold-war era.
      Lets concentrate on Americans before caring for our neighbors

Clinton: I warn Castro that his days are numbered. We will not hesitate to
         send our troops, if this aggressive posture continues

Dole: We don't need a spineless president. We want action and not words.
 

    Well, I saw the video footage of Dole's statement about prosecuting
    the pilots from the Cuban Air Force.

    He read it directly from a piece of paper without even looking up.

    This guy has no ideas at all, and even his tough talk comes directly
    from a script (which he can't even deliver without the presentation
    of a third grader standing up in class to present the next paragraph
    of a class textbook.)

    Suzanne:
    
    I am in complete agreement with you on this issue about Dole.  I'd only
    wish Libby was running instead of Bob.
    
    Ron

| <<< Note 569.219 by USAT05::HALLR "God loves even you!" >>>


| I am in complete agreement with you on this issue about Dole.  I'd only
| wish Libby was running instead of Bob.

	They make great canned fruit!

    
       Rumor has it you like your fruit from a can!

:-)

    Actually, Glenn, maybe we ought to open up both diplomatic relations
    with Cuba and lift economic sanctions so that Canada would be able to
    freely trade and diplome with Castro.  I'm sure in about 6 months, the
    Communists would then topple...
    
    :-)

    Shades of Clinton lambasting Bush for Haiti policy.
    
    If/when Dole gets to sit in the big chair, he'll have to think again.
    
    DougO

    Before he nods off of course.

    Whatever Dole would decide to do, he could read it off the paper
    without looking up at all (to make sure he's reading his script
    correctly.)

BIll to block trade with Cuba starts to sting Canadian companies

By Heather Scofield, The Canadian Press

TORONTO -- Canadian companies doing business in Cuba are feeling the sting of
a U.S. bill tightening sanctions against the Caribbean island.

"These American laws are designed to hurt non-Americans," said Andrew Ferrier,
president of Redpath Sugars. "We had to make a decision to stop buying from
Cuba or lose our business with the United States."

Redpath has always separated its Cuban raw-sugar imports from other sugar to
serve customers who deal with the United States.  But a few weeks ago, Redpath,
one of Cuba's biggest sugar customers, cut off trade altogether, anticipating
increased hostility in the United States.

"It's apparent to many of our customers that they couldn't accept having any
Cuban sugar," Ferrier said.  "We can't do it any more.  We no longer buy any
Cuban sugar."

The American bill aims to punish companies doing business with Cuba, whose
Communist government has caused a furore in the United States with the recent
shooting down of two civilian U.S. airplanes.

All the legislation needs to become law is President Bill Clinton's signature,
expected in a few days.  Then, Americans will be allowed to sue Canadian
companies or prevent their executives from entering the United States. 

More than 30 Canadian companies operate in Cuba, and two-way trade is worth
more than $500 million a year.

The bill aims directly at companies using property that once belonged to
Americans or to Cubans who have fled to the United States, explained
international-law specialist Barry Appleton.

If Pizza Nova, for example, has set up in a building once owned by a
Cuban-American, the Toronto-based pizza chain could be sued for damages or its
owner could be barred from vacationing in Florida, Appleton said.  

Or if Sherritt International Corp. mines an area once owned by an American, the
company would risk ever doing business in the United States.

"But they can't enforce it in Cuba or Canada," Appleton said.   "They can 
enforce it only against the investment (in the United States)."

Pizza Nova isn't worried, though.

"If they don't want me to go over the border and spend my money, and my wife to
go shopping over the border, then she'll shop in Yorkville (in Toronto)
instead," said indignant owner Sam Primucci, who recently set up two franchises
and one kiosk in Cuba.  "I'm just so tired of this.  It's just not right."

Appleton agrees.  He says the Cuba bill breaks regulations under the North
American Free Trade Agreement.

Sherritt International, meanwhile, is trying to keep a low profile.

"We're doing business legally in every jurisdiction," said spokeswoman Patrice
Merrin Best.

Sherritt has nickel, oil, gas and tourism assets in Cuba and has said it plans
to expand operatons there.  But the Toronto-based company made a wise move last
fall when it divided its international assets and its North Amercian fertilizer
business into two companies with separate staff.

That means the fertilizer company couldn't be hurt by the U.S. bill, analysts
said. 

Still, some companies and observers say the bill will be difficult to enforce.  

"It's a tempest in a teapot to be honest," said former federal Tory cabinet
minister Doug Lewis, head of the Cuba-Canada Business Council.  "It gives
Clinton a foreign affairs stage on which to perform."

Many businesses say the bill won't apply to them because they're not operating
on property that used to belong to Americans.

"We don't operate any of the hotels that are perceived to be confiscated," said
Marilotte Bloemen of Delta Hotels, which manages five resorts, a hotel and a
tour business in Cuba.

That's hard to confirm since there's no complete record of what the United
States considers confiscated property.

Canadian companies should be optimistic, said Doug Leishman, a mining analyst
with Yorkton Securities in Vancouver.

"The Americans' previous investments in Cuba were casinos and brothels.  Most
Canadian companies weren't into that." 

                                           

    God's work indeed.
    
    pleh!

     So if some group basically stole some Canadian foreign investments by
    having a coup and taking over all private assets, you'd think it just
    peachy that some foreign companies moved in and engaged in trade with
    the "new owners"? In fact, you'd continue to trade with such companies?

    I'm not sure. But I wouldn't force our policies on other governments.
    If we have a beef with another country, we don't go forcing everyone else
    to.
    
    My `God's work' comment is regarding the casinos and brothels.

    
      Cuban beef ?
    
      bb

    >I'm not sure. But I wouldn't force our policies on other governments.
    
     How does the legislation force our policy on other governments? It
    only applies sanctions to companies that do business with stolen
    american property. 

    The U.S. embargo already applies to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms,
    if I'm not mistaken.  The Helms bill attempts to extend it to foreign
    companies, operating entirely legally, if they happen to have U.S.
    assets or if their owners or executives want to travel to the U.S. 
    Cuba has been a Communist state for the last 35-40 years; are companies
    supposed to do some kind of title search to discover who owned all the 
    property that may be involved in a Cuban business venture, 40 years
    ago?
    
    -Stephen

    This course of action wasn't taken with China, or even Vietnam for that
    matter. Veitnam cost the U.S. how many billions? Now the U.S. is
    trading with Vietnam. Have all of the assets been straightened out
    there?

    Sure, Glenn, we called in Guido and now everythings fixed!
    
    :-)

    This whole thing is stupid.  But of course, what do you expect from
    Helms?
    
    Bob

    think Helms can stay awake long enough?

	I don't think many of us thought he would have lived this long..... but
he has. So anything is possible.

    Two different Canadian columnists.... two different viewpoints

    Printed without permission
    
    "Our Hypocrisy is Showing"
    Peter Worthington, Toronto Sun - March 21/96
    
    In a recent debate on CBC Radio's Metro Morning, Liberal MP (Toronto
    Rosedale) Bill Graham, chairman of a Commons committee on international
    trade, defended Canada's policy of trade and investment partnerships
    with Cuba, saying our intent was not to support Castro but to help the
    Cuban people.
    
    Among other things, Graham accused the U.S. of bully tactics by seeking
    to punish some foreign firms doing business with Cuba - reflecting the
    view of European countries.  He said U.S. sanctions over the years have
    helped keep Castro in power and hurt the growth of democracy.  Trade
    Minister Art Eggleton echoes the theme.
    
    After Cuban MiGs shot down two unarmed Cessnas in February, President
    Bill Clinton reversed his earlier opposition to stricter sanctions and
    proposed sterner reprisals - a popular gesture in this U.S. election
    year.
    
    The implication that Canada invests, aids and enters into partnerships
    with Castro in order to advance democracy and improve the lives of
    Cubans is, of course, a crock of hooey.
    
    Ottawa's purpose is to make money - to take advantage of Cuba's
    desperate economic plight (which has softened Castro's pathological
    hatred of democratic capitalism) and to profit from Washington's
    refusal to do business with Cuba.  As well, it gives us the appearance
    of independence and refusing to dance to Washington's loony tune. 
    Amoral opportunism by Ottawa is nothing new; it's the hypocrisy and
    deceit that is repugnant.
    
    The Helms-Burton law punishes foreign companies that exploit Cuban
    property expropriated (stolen) by Castro, and the law would prevent
    executives of these companies from entering the U.S.  How stringently
    this law will be enforced, remains to be seen.
    
    While many may think the U.S. is foolish to maintain and intensify its
    35-year economic vendetta against Castro, reality is that Castro and
    communism have been instruments of tortue, misery, poverty and
    repression in Cuba.  Hunger and deprivation are its legacy.
    
    Regardless of the undeniable logic and justice of the Helms-Burton law,
    history shows that American foreign policy is often misguided, botched,
    inept, even disastrous - witness Vietnam, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Somalia,
    Bosnia.  Saddam Hussein, whom American once armed and supported, has
    outlasted five presidents.
    
    It should be no surprise that America's handling of Cuba has been less
    than inspired and has even verged on hysteria.  This in no way
    mitigates the infamy of Castro, just as an ill-conceived U.S. war in
    Vietnam shouldn't imply Hanoi's virtue.
    
    For Bill Graham, on behalf of Canada, to suggest Canada's business
    partnerships with Cuba is intended to aid the Cuban people is as
    insulting as it is false.  Our government knows that every dollar
    invested in Cuba goes to the Cuban government, which then pays
    starvation wages to employees who work for partnership companies.  Pay
    of $10 a month is the norm; anyone visiting Cuba can see in local
    stores that there's nothing for the people -- only foreign goods for
    foreign money.  Tourists wax fat, Cubans go hungry.
    
    Rathern than encourage democracy, foreign partnerships help sustain the
    Western hemisphere's most repressive regime.
    
    The U.S. is intensifying pressure against Cuba precisely because the
    regime is unravelling.  When Castro goes, so does communism.  Apart
    from the likes of Vietnam, North Korea, Libya, Iraq, etc., Cuba's only
    friends are tourists seeking cheap holidays and governments after
    favorable business deals.
    
    Canadian hypocrisy is legendary.  In the name of helping black South
    Africans we led the world in imposing sanctions at a time when
    apartheid was being dismantled.  For the first 35 years of repressive
    apartheid, it was business as usual for Canada.  Those most hurt by
    sanctions were the black workers we claimed we wanted to help when, in
    fact, it was the government we wanted overthrown.
    
    Naturally, we don't like being dictated to by American.  But isn't that
    what Castro is doing when he says there can be no deals with individual
    Cubans, only with the Cuban government?  Is it not collusion with
    tyranny when we brand those who escape Cuba as "economic refugees" and
    deport them, when leaving Cuba without permission or overstaying a visa
    means prison?
    
    There are no free elections in Cuba, no human rights, no property
    rights, no freedom of speech, no rule of law as we know it.  Worse,
    Castro once sold his country to the world's most repressive imperialist
    power, sent his soldiers as totalitarian mercenaries to Africa, sought
    to undermine his neighbors, made Cuba into a base for subversion.
    
    Fine if Canada wants such a regime as a friend and partner, but don't
    sugar coat reality and pretend virtue while practising perfidy.

    Printed without permission
    
    "Canada has never backed U.S. on Cuba"
    by David Crane, Toronto Star's Economics Editor - March 21/96
    
    In the vaults of the Bank of Nova Scotia in downtown Toronto, there is
    something of a historic document.
    
    Signed by Che Guevera, the onetime confidante of Cuban leader Fidel
    Castro and for a very brief time the governor of Cuba's central bank, 
    the document records the 1961 sale of Scotiabank's Cuban subsidiary to
    the Cuban government.
    
    Guevera, a true revolutionary, went on to die, in 1967, in a guerrilla
    war in the mountains of Bolivia, where he was trying to spread the
    Castro revolution.
    
    But the document in the Scotiabank vaults also symbolizes in a way the
    huge difference in the relationship between Canada versus the United
    States and the Castro regime, which came to power in 1960.
    
    When Castro expropriated Cuba's banks at the start of the 1960s, he
    exempted just two:  The Bank of Nova Scotia and the Royal Bank, both
    Canadian.
    
    In 1960, Cuba also sent a high-powered trade mission to Canada, at a
    time when the United States was starting to cut off trade.
    
    And Canada refused to have anything to do with the subsequent trade
    embargo the united States imposed on Cuba, despite U.S. pressure for
    Canada to follow U.S. policy.
    
    But almost from the day Castro gained power, displacing a thuggish,
    right-wing dictator by the name of Fulgencio Batista, the Americans and
    Castro couldn't get along, reaching the point today where overthrowing
    Castro has become a U.S. obsession.
    
    But Canada, from the start, had no quarrel with Cuba.
    
    John Diefenbaker, prime minister at the time, said there could be "no
    valid objection" to dealing with Cuba in non-strategic goods, although
    then Canadian trade minister George Hees no doubt went overboard when
    he effusively declared that "you can't do business with better
    businessmen anywhere."
    
    While anti-Castro Cubans demonstrated in front of the Canadian embassy
    in Washington in 1961, carrying placards declaring "Down with Canada,"
    The Toronto Star responded editorially that "Canada has suffered no
    provocation or injury at Cuba's hands to justify a break in either
    trade or diplomatic relations."
    
    But successive U.S. administrations have plotted invasions,
    assassination attempts on Castro and other key Cuban figures, economic
    warfare and other measures to destabilize Cuba.
    
    And part of today's anti-Castro hysteria in the United States may
    simply be due to the fact that, despite 35 years of such efforts,
    Castro remains in power, thumbing his nose at the United States.
    
    But part of the hysteria also reflects a long-standing American view of
    that country's perceived right to influence how Cubans should live.
    
    "Since the early 19th century, Cuba's proximity to the United States,
    strategic location on the seaways of the Caribbean and economic
    importance have induced U.S. politicians to assert the right to dictate
    Cuba's foreign policy and internal arrangements," writes Gaddis Smith,
    a Yale University historian.
    
    Nearly 100 years ago, in 1898, U.S. forces invaded Cuba and forced out
    the Spanish, a move that might have occurred earlier had it not been
    for the U.S. civil war.
    
    The U.S. military occupied and ran Cuba for the next four years, and
    then imposed the Platt Amendment, which gave the United States the
    right to dictate Cuba's foreign relations and intervene militarily in
    Cuba's internal affairs.  U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt
    relinquished these rights only in 1934.
    
    U.S. corporate interests, and U.S. organized crime, went on to gain a
    dominant position in the Cuban economy.
    
    But since Castro came to power in 1960, the United States has imposed a
    double standard on Cuba.
    
    The United States insists it will not lift its trade embargo or cease
    its efforts to destabilize Cuba until the country had democratic
    elections and adopts other reforms demanded by the United States.
    
    Yet the United States imposes no democracy or human-rights demands on
    states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China or Indonesia, for example,
    as a precondition for diplomatic recognition or trade and investment.
    
    The United States has even restored diplomatic and economic relations
    with Vietnam, despite the fact that Vietnam is not a democracy and some
    58,167 Americans died there in the 1960s and '70s and another 153,303
    were wounded.
    
    In the latest anti-Castro legislation, the United States has gone a
    step further, trying to make U.S. allies do its dirty work as well.
    
    But the United States is the loser because, in the process, it has
    broken international law and conventions and shown itself to be an
    unprincipled bully.

    The Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star. Now, tell me, which news paper is
    more credible? One that has a bimbo on page 3 or one that doesn't.

    I would agree with you on your assessment of the newspapers, however
    Peter Worthington has worked for both and I think he is currently the 
    managing editor for the Sun, so I believe he's pretty credible.  The Sun
    has some very good columnists.
    
    FWIW, I thought that both articles made some valid points.

    They made points that appealed to the readerships it seems.

>>    There are no free elections in Cuba, no human rights, no property
>>    rights, no freedom of speech, no rule of law as we know it.

America's bosom buddies, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (other gulf nations), Pakistan,
China are the finest examples of societies with "free elections, democracy, 
freedom of speech (read religious freedom), human rights etc.."

They have to be, otherwise why would America be friendly with them ..! Someone 
help me.. I am rolling .. 

-Jk

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would rank in the bottom of nations with "freedom of 
<put your favourite thingie>"

    Glenn said bimbo

>    Glenn said bimbo

	but at least he didn't use it to refer to a bunch of women
	going to a women's conference.

    
    	Well, Jack didn't say that Glenn used it correctly.
    
    	8^)
    

FIDEL CASTRO'S BALANCING ACT

By Joe Schlesinger - Toronto

Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Paul Martin, meet a soul mate:  Fidel Castro.  For
two years, the Cuban leader has been doing much the same as you have:  
privatizing, downsizing, restructuring, budget-cutting and subsidy-slashing.

No, Mr. Castro has not been converted to capitalism.  He is doing this to save
communism -- or rather, what is left of communism in Cuba.

Yet it looks and feels more like a counter-revolution.  Free enterprise is
booming.  There are markets where farmers are allowed -- O heresy of heresies
-- to sell their produce at a profit and keep the money rather than just hand
it over to the state.  Licenced private entrepreneurs hawk their wares and
services on every street corner in Havana.  Private restaurants are mushrooming
in the front parlours and back yards of homes.  Foreign investors, once limited
to joint ventures with the Cuban government, can now own 100 per cent of their
Cuban operations.

In the meantime, state payrolls have been trimmed.  Unemployment, officially
given as 7 per cent of the work force, is probably closer to twice that, and
it's growing.

What brought all this about was not any change of heart on Mr. Castro's part;
it was do-or-die necessity.

For 30 years, in defiance of American displeasure and the U.S. economic embargo,
Mr. Castro's Cuba was kept afloat by subsidies from the Soviet Union and its
European satellites.  That snug if shabby "grace and favour" existence ended
with the collapse of communism in Europe.  Deprived of Eastern Europe's trade
and subsidies, Cuba's gross domestic product by 1994 had nosedived to 60 per
cent of what it had been five years earlier.

The Cuban economy was close to a meltdown.  In hunger and desperation,
thousands of Cubans took to anything that would float in order to flee to
Florida, in the process creating a crisis with the United States.

Two things saved Cuba from an explosion.  The first was internal.  The Cuban
army stepped in and declared the food situation a national-security issue.  It
persuaded the President to swallow his Marxist principles and accept privatized
farmers markets as the only way to put food back on Cuban tables.

The other development was pure manna falling from the American heaven.  Spooked
by the invasion of Cubans on rafts, the Clinton administration struck a deal
with Cuba to control the flood.  As part of it, President Bill Clinton allowed
Cuban-Americans for the first time to travel to Cuba and send their relatives
there money.

That unleashed a flood of dollars.  It has been estimated that US. remittances
to Cuba add up to $500-million a year.  That's as much as Cuba's two-way trade
with Canada, its largest trading partner.  But the benefit of the money from
Florida is infinitely greater, because it is pure one-way gravy.

While most money from foreign trade goes straight into the Cuban treasury, the
Cuban-American remittances -- and tips from Canadian and other tourists -- go
straight into the pockets of ordinary Cubans.  

This has created a zany economy.  Where a couple of years ago it was illegal
for Cubans even to own a dollar, now all that remittance money and tips have
created a "dollarized" consumer economy.  Apart from rice, beans, and a few
other basic products, everything -- cooking oil, butter, most clothing, all
imported goods -- can be bought only in a rapidly expanding chain of dollar
stores.  Thus Cuban-Americans, who are so opposed to Fidel Castro and come down
so hard on Canadians for trading with Cuba, have ironically become Mr. Castro's 
most important financial supporters.

What he has succeeded in doing with the American dollar is what Jacques
Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard have dreamed of doing with the Canadian dollar if
Quebec separates.  He has hijacked the dollar and effectively turned it into
the country's currency.  There is even a convertible peso pegged to the dollar. 
There are still pesos of the old hardly-worth-the paper-they're-printed-on
kind, but except for inadequate rations in government stores, there is precious
little you can buy with them.  (An ordinary worker's monthly peso salary will
buy you $10 U.S.)

For all the economic liberalization, though, Mr. Castro has drawn a line in the
shifting sands of ideology.  Unlike China's Deng Xiao-ping, who has proclaimed
that that "to be rich is glorious," Mr. Castro has balked at having Cuban
capitalists.

It may be okay - even blessed - for foreigners to grow rich in Cuba.  But,
apart from relatives, Cubans are not allowed to hire other Cubans as employees. 
This has put a crimp in economic expansion, and is the subject of a heated
debate in Cuba.  The strongest pressure to relax the rules comes from farmers,
who argue that with hired hands they could feed Cuba better.

For all that, Mr. Castro remains firmly in control.  While he has said yes to a
form of _perestroika_, Mikhail Gorbachev's economic reform, he has given an
emphatic no to _glasnost_, Gorby's political reform.  If anything, he has
cracked down harder on dissidents than before.

When his MiGs shot down two unarmed American civilian planes a month ago, Mr.
Castro was taking the day off. He told Time magazine that he had spent it
relaxing and reading Mr. Gorbachev's autobiography, _My Day_.  His main
preoccupation these days is avoiding the mistakes that brought down Mr.
Gorbachev and the Soviet empire.

He has one thing going for him that Mr. Gorbachev did not:  a much larger
bullying neighbour.  Every time Uncle Sam moves against Fidel, Cubans -- even
many of those who can't stand Mr. Castro -- tend to rally around the flag. 
Washington's latest economic measures against Cuba have done that once again.

Which brings us to the ultimate political puzzle:  Could Fidel Castro survive
if the Americans lifted their embargo and flooded the island with the goodies
of capitalism?  We're not talking here of cell phones and VCRs.  Cubans would
welcome, for starters, matches and soap that actually cleans.

     Averting a vendetta

     By Globe Staff, 07/16/96

     Today is the last day that President Clinton can waive Title 3 of the
     Helms-Burton act, a masochistic piece of legislation that proposes to
     hasten the demise of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba by provoking a legal
     and commercial vendetta between the United States and its closest
     allies.

     Under Title 3 of Helms-Burton, naturalized American citizens -
     particularly Cuban exiles - have the right to sue foreign companies
     ``trafficking'' in properties nationalized by the Cuban government. The
     plaintiffs can bring suit in federal courts even if they became US
     citizens after their properties were confiscated.

     The special-interest pandering inherent in the bill is the least of its
     evils. The truly perverse effect of Title 3, should it not be waived,
     would be to start what the Financial Times of London called ``an
     uncontrollable flood of litigation which would imperil the property
     rights of foreign investors in the US and jeopardize relations with
     trusted allies.''

     In a proper effort to influence Clinton's decision, the foreign
     ministers of the European Union convened yesterday in Brussels and
     reached what EU Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan called a
     ``unanimous, decisive and swift'' agreement to retaliate in kind
     against US companies in the event that Clinton does not suspend
     implementation of Title 3 for renewable intervals of six months.

     Just as Helms-Burton has denied entry into the United States for some
     Canadian and European executives, the EU agreed to symmetrical changes
     in ``procedures governing the entry (into Europe) by representatives of
     US companies.'' The Europeans will also compile a ``watch list'' of US
     companies involved in litigation against European firms doing business
     in Cuba.

     Clinton can suspend Title 3 if he determines that a waiver is, in the
     language of Helms-Burton, ``necessary to the national interest.''

     Since nothing Castro might contrive could harm US interests as much as
     a groundless cycle of litigious fights with precious allies, Clinton
     has a solemn responsibility to waive Title 3 of Helms-Burton.

     This story ran on page a14 of the Boston Globe on 07/16/96.

	If you take that last story, change Cuba to tobacco, Helms would be
twitching... 

Note that even if Clinton doesn't suspend the portion of the law allowing
litigation, the remainder of the law is already in effect.

Under the portion of the law already in effect, a Canadian firm which has
purchased a business interest in property which Castro confiscated has
been notified that its senior management (and their families) now require
special visas (which may or may not be granted) for entry into the U.S.

Thus the following article in the Toronto Globe and Mail only addresses
part of the Helms-Burton law:

---------------------

Canada, EU expect little from Clinton's musings

 WASHINGTON -- Canada and the European Union both expect the
 worst today (Tuesday) as U.S. President Bill Clinton considered
 whether to implement a tough anti-Cuba law. Clinton was reported
 Monday to be searching for a compromise to avoid drawing the ire of
 Canada and other U.S. allies.

 From his mountain retreat at Camp David, Md., he was reviewing
 his options on the Helms-Burton Act. Clinton is under immense
 pressure from allies to waive part of the law that allows U.S. citizens
 to use U.S. courts to sue foreign companies with Cuban investments.
 He must make a decision sometime today if he wants to keep this
 provision of the law from going into effect automatically.

 "We are expecting the worst, but we'll continue pressing the
 administration" for the waiver, said George Rioux, a spokesman for
 the Canadian Embassy. He said Canadian Ambassador Raymond
 Chretien is working round the clock to get Clinton to use the waiver.

 Prime Minister Jean Chretien has authorized the preparation of
 retaliatory measures that would include allowing Canadians to sue
 any U.S. company that uses the Helms-Burton law to attack
 Canadians companies.

 In Brussels, European Union foreign ministers were also bracing for
 the worst. European Commission Jacques Santer promised a swift,
 decisive response. "We must react and must react today," Santer
 said.

 The EU foreign ministers agreed on a wide range of retaliatory
 measures to be taken against the United States should Clinton not
 waive the trade law. EU Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan said
 the 15-member bloc has agreed to consider compiling a "watch list"
 of U.S. companies that take legal action against European firms with
 Cuban links. Brittan said foreign ministers have also agreed to
 consider changing "procedures governing the entry (to Europe) by
 representatives of U.S. companies to EU member states."

Europe could bar US citizens in Cuba trade row
By Toby Helm, EU Correspondent, in Brussels 

   Clinton searches for compromise

 BRITAIN and its 14 European Union partners stepped up pressure on
 President Clinton last night, giving warning that American citizens could
 be barred from Europe unless he waives a law punishing foreigners for
 trading with Cuba.

 European foreign ministers meeting in Brussels pledged a concerted
 campaign of retaliation in an attempt to force a retreat by Mr Clinton over
 the Helms-Burton Act before a deadline of midnight tonight. Among the
 measures that could be enforced by EU member states are visa restrictions
 on visiting businessmen and tighter rules on the granting of work
 permits. Member states are also preparing to lodge a formal protest with
 the World Trade Organisation.

 Ministers also discussed the possibility of drawing up community-wide
 legislation - either through each member state's parliament or by means
 of an EU ruling - instructing European citizens to disobey Helms-Burton
 and give them legal protection when doing so. Another measure that
 received wide backing was the establishment of a blacklist of US
 companies that were filing lawsuits against European businessmen under
 the Helms-Burton Act. The idea is to blacken the name of the companies,
 who may have extensive trading interest in the European community.

 The Helms-Burton law was drawn up in March after Cuban fighters shot
 down two private aircraft flown by Cuban-Americans. The most sensitive
 section of the law, which Mr Clinton is under intense pressure to waive,
 is known as Title III.

 This gives Cuban Americans the right to sue foreigners in US courts if
 they deal in property confiscated since the Communist revolution in 1959.
 Under the bill, the President is allowed to waive sections for six months at
 a time. The deadline for waiving Title III is midnight tonight.

 Foreign Office sources confirmed that Mr Rifkind was examining the
 possibility of some form of visa restrictions and new and tighter rules on
 work permits for US citizens wanting to enter Britain

 Jacques Santer, President of the European Commission, called for a tough
 response from EU member states after predicting that Mr Clinton would
 not give ground. "It is more than likely that the US will confirm full
 implementation," he said. "We must react quickly and we must react
 today."

 In a rare show of solidarity, the foreign ministers responded, making clear
 that they would not tolerate attempts by the US administration to impose
 its laws on foreigners. Malcolm Rifkind, the Foreign Secretary, said: "We
 don't believe the United States penalising its allies is going to help the
 cause of democratic reform in Cuba.

 "This is a matter that goes to the very heart of the relationship between
 the United States and other countries, not just European countries, also
 its own neighbours in North America. I believe it is going to be necessary
 to respond in a very clear way so that there is no uncertainty about the
 strength of feeling on this issue."

 Foreign Office sources confirmed that Mr Rifkind was examining the
 possibility of some form of visa restrictions and new and tighter rules on
 work permits for US citizens wanting to enter Britain. The Protection of
 Trading Interests Act already gave British citizens protection against
 "improper extra-territorial attempts to put on pressure of this kind", he
 said.

 It also emerged last night that Spain, which has more interests in Cuba
 than any other European country, is drawing up its own "blocking
 statute" that would give legal protection to Spaniards to break
 Helms-Burton and other such laws.

 European Union nations, led by Spain, France and Italy, accounted for 45
 per cent of Cuba's total trade in 1994, mainly in food, tobacco and minerals

 Abel Matutes, the Spanish Foreign Minister, said Spain would press
 ahead even if Title III was waived. International outrage over the law
 mounted last week after two British businessmen, Rupert Pennant-Rea,
 the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, and Sir Patrick
 Sheehy were warned that they would be barred from the US.

 Both are board members of a Canadian mining company that has fallen
 foul of the Helms-Burton law. Herv� de Charette, the French Foreign
 Affairs Minister, said the situation was extremely serious.

 "It concerns the sincerity of commercial dealings between states," he said.
 "It is directly contrary to rules governing international commerce." EU
 governments believe that Mr Clinton may not give way because he is
 determined to court votes in states such as Florida and New Jersey, which
 have large Cuban-American populations, during an election year.

 "We all know what pressures the President is under domestically," said a
 Foreign Office spokesman. We are not proceeding on the assumption he
 will waive."

 European Union nations, led by Spain, France and Italy, accounted for 45
 per cent of Cuba's total trade in 1994, mainly in food, tobacco and
 minerals.

US bans visits from Britons in trade row over Cuba
    By Hugh Davies     (last Thursday, 11 July)

 THE Foreign Office accused the Clinton administration yesterday of being
 "wrong-headed" after the families of two British businessmen were
 banned from the United States.

 Rupert Pennant-Rea, former deputy governor of the Bank of England,
 and Sir Patrick Sheehy, ex-chairman of British American Tobacco, have
 been informed that they and their families are no longer welcome in
 America and cannot visit in any guise. Letters to them state that the ban
 begins in 45 days.

 Both men are board members of Sherritt International Corporation, a
 Canadian mining company which has fallen foul of the Helms-Burton
 law imposing sanctions on foreign companies operating in Cuba.

 But the Foreign Office said the policy made "no sense whatsoever". The
 Britons were well-known businessmen engaged in work that was
 "entirely legitimate in the eyes of the British, Canadian and Cuban
 governments".

 The idea that exclusion from America would put pressure on the Cuban
 regime was ridiculous, a spokesman said. "We are taking this up
 vigorously with the US administration and pressing them to rescind their
 decision."

 Britain is relying on what seem like cracks in the Clinton team, some of
 whom have noted Canada's threat to Florida's economy in its urging of
 Canadian tourists to steer clear of the sunshine state. About 2 million
 Canadians travel to Florida every winter, spending more than a billion
 dollars.

 Robert Rubin, the US Treasury Secretary, said yesterday that he was
 worried about retaliation.

 "I have some real concerns about the extra-territorial application of
 American law," he said. "But you have to balance that with our interests
 in bringing pressure to bear on countries like Cuba."

    
    
    	re -1
    
    	wow...
    
    

    How can this be?  After all, Congress is in bed with foreign
    bankers and business leaders.

>	If you take that last story, change Cuba to tobacco, Helms would be
>twitching... 

It's about sugar not tobacco. 

Despite being a master of taking special interest money, Helms aint that
much a big fan of tobacco. His money and his main interest behind his
position on Cuba is Sugar Money.

Helms aint twitching cause the fix is in for sugar ever where you look
from this nonsense through the agriculture "reforms".

TTom

Angry EU begins work on Helms-Burton reprisals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 Reuter Information Service

BRUSSELS (Jul 16, 1996 09:11 a.m. EDT) - European Trade Commissioner Sir
Leon Brittan, backed by an angry, unified European Union, began work on
Tuesday on the details of a plan to counter tough U.S. anti-Cuba laws due to
come into effect in a matter of hours.

Unless President Bill Clinton uses his waiver later on Tuesday to suspend
part of the controversial Helms-Burton Act, the European Union will respond
with measures that could hit at the U.S. government, U.S. companies and
American citizens.

EU officials said Brittan had been amazed at the unified strength of
opposition against the act by EU foreign ministers who agreed the
retaliation plan on Monday.

"They basically agreed with every measure he suggested," said one official.
"The opposition to Helms-Burton was quite something."

The European Commission -- the EU's executive -- will now work on the
details of four main counter-measures before handing them to a committee of
EU ambassadors for approval.

The four points were:

-- escalating the EU's official complaint to the World Trade Organisation;

-- changing the procedure governing entry to EU states by representatives of
U.S. companies;

-- using or introducing legislation within the EU to neutralise the
extra-territorial effects of the act;

-- establishing a "watch list" of U.S. companies which take legal action
against European firms.

On Tuesday European diplomats said the EU's response had been stronger than
the United States could possibly have expected.

"Washington was expecting a wishy-washy statement. This reaction will have
stung them," one diplomat said.

Clinton has until midnight on Tuesday to waive passage of the so-called
"Title III" of the act, which allows naturalised Americans the right to sue,
in U.S. courts, foreign companies deemed to have gained from investments in
property confiscated by the Cuban government.

Title IV of the act, which has already become law, allows the State
Department to bar entry to the United States to shareholders and executives
of companies which have benefited from confiscated property.

Last week, the United States announced the first punitive sanctions against
a foreign company under the law, saying some executives and board members of
Canadian mining firm Sherritt International Corp would not be allowed into
the United States because of their business ties to Cuba.

Two of the executives of Sherritt targeted by Washington are Britons,
including the former deputy governor of the Bank of England Rupert
Pennant-Rea, prompting Britain's Foreign Office "to protest vigorously,"
according to a spokesman.

European diplomats had no doubts on Tuesday that Clinton -- fearing a waiver
could cost him domestic support in an election year -- will let the act
progress despite personal reservations.

He was initially opposed to Title III, but approved an amended version in
March after Cuban fighter planes shot down two U.S. light aircraft that
Havana said had repeatedly strayed into its airspace.

In Washington on Monday, Clinton said he had still not made up his mind on
the matter. A spokesman for Jesse Helms described the EU's reaction as
"hysterical." The act is named after him and fellow congressman Dan Burton.

Canada, which with fellow North American Free Trade Agreement member Mexico
has most to lose from the act, said it welcomed the EU's stance.

President faces tough choice as Cuba deadline approaches
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Jul 16, 1996 09:11 a.m. EDT) -- Confronted with sharply opposing
views, President Clinton is facing a deadline for deciding whether to crack
down on foreign companies using property confiscated from Americans in Cuba.

Legislation enacted three months ago gave Clinton until today to waive a
provision that would allow the American owners to sue the foreign firms in
U.S. courts.

In an interview Monday night with MSNBC, the new cable and Internet news
service, Clinton acknowledged that he faces problems with European allies if
he decides not to waive the provision.

But the president added, "I must do what I think is in the national interest
of the United States and what is likely to bring democracy to Cuba. We have
to keep pushing until we get a democratic response in Cuba."

The European Union warned Monday that the retaliation could include
blacklisting U.S. companies and requiring visas for business travelers.

"The best way to get change in Cuba is not to clobber your allies," said Sir
Leon Brittan, EU vice president and trade commissioner.

But Clinton is coming under pressure at home not to waive enforcement of the
provision. The anti-communist Cuban-American National Foundation said last
week that if Clinton waives the provision, it will embolden foreign
investors already in Cuba or those contemplating investments there.

A co-author of the legislation, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., says Clinton
should enforce the provision because President Fidel Castro is "running a
fire sale in stolen property."

In a similar vein, House International Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin
Gilman, R-N.Y., says the new law undermines "Castro's desperate scheme to
raise hard currency by selling stolen property to unscrupulous companies."

Clinton studied a briefing paper on the issue over the weekend at Camp
David, aides said. But White House spokesman Mike McCurry acknowledged
Monday that on this issue, Clinton cannot please everybody.

"No matter which way you go, there are probably both positive and negative
political consequences," he said.

At issue is the status of 5,911 U.S. properties that were seized by Cuba
within the first two years of the 1959 revolution. More than 100 foreign
companies are believed to be using these properties for profit.

One of the companies is Sherritt International Corp., a Canadian mining firm
operating on property in eastern Cuba owned by Freeport-MacMoRan Inc. of New
Orleans.

Last week, under another provision of the legislation, the U.S. government
sent letters to nine people affiliated with Sherritt, warning they were no
longer welcome in the United States if they did not sever their ties with
the company within 45 days. Similar letters to other firms also are planned.

Cuba has expressed willingness to compensate the owners but only in the
context of a broader accommodation between the United States and Cuba. The
administration says no accommodation is possible in the absence of sweeping
political and economic reform in Cuba.

A State Department official says there is almost no sentiment among U.S.
diplomats for enforcing the lawsuit provision because of the solid
opposition not only in Europe and Canada, but Latin America as well.

But Clinton has to take into account the sentiment of large Cuban-American
communities in swing states such as Florida and New Jersey. A decision to
waive probably would cost him some Cuban-American votes in November. The
legislation allows Clinton to waive enforcement at intervals of six months.

Title IV of the act, which is already in effect and not subject to
waiver, is posted in .190 of this topic.

It is under Title IV that the executives of the Canadian mining company
(including the Britons mentioned in the Telegraph article) have been
informed that they will not be permitted to enter the U.S.

The entire text of the bill, as sent to and signed by the President, is
available at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c104/h927.enr.txt

/john

    Hmph, I can just picture Mr. Decisive squirming and whimpering in
    the Oval Office.  Looks like a real no-win for him.
    
    Chris

Clinton has come down with his feet firmly on both sides of this issue.

He has just announced that Americans may sue under the provisions of the
Helms-Burton law, but not until February 1st.

In his statement he said, "all companies doing business in Cuba are hereby
on notice that by trafficking in expropriated property, they face the
prospects of lawsuits and significant liability in the United States."

/john

    he's so slick.

    Slick 50-50?

For what it's worth, here's Title III of H.R.927:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   H.R.927

Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled
Bill (Sent to President, Signed into law))

     TITLE III--PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS

          SEC. 301. FINDINGS.

            The Congress makes the following findings:

                (1) Individuals enjoy a fundamental right to own and enjoy
              property which is enshrined in the United States Constitution.

                (2) The wrongful confiscation or taking of property belonging
              to United States nationals by the Cuban Government, and the
              subsequent exploitation of this property at the expense of the
              rightful owner, undermines the comity of nations, the free flow
              of commerce, and economic development.

                (3) Since Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba in 1959--

                    (A) he has trampled on the fundamental rights of the 
                  Cuban people; and

                    (B) through his personal despotism, he has confiscated 
                  the property of--

                        (i) millions of his own citizens;

                        (ii) thousands of United States nationals; and

                        (iii) thousands more Cubans who claimed asylum in the
                      United States as refugees because of persecution and
                      later became naturalized citizens of the United States.

                (4) It is in the interest of the Cuban people that the Cuban
              Government respect equally the property rights of Cuban
              nationals and nationals of other countries.

                (5) The Cuban Government is offering foreign investors the
              opportunity to purchase an equity interest in, manage, or enter
              into joint ventures using property and assets some of which 
              were confiscated from United States nationals.

                (6) This `trafficking' in confiscated property provides badly
              needed financial benefit, including hard currency, oil, and
              productive investment and expertise, to the current Cuban
              Government and thus undermines the foreign policy of the United
              States--

                    (A) to bring democratic institutions to Cuba through the
                  pressure of a general economic embargo at a time when the
                  Castro regime has proven to be vulnerable to international
                  economic pressure; and

                    (B) to protect the claims of United States nationals who
                  had property wrongfully confiscated by the Cuban Government.

                (7) The United States Department of State has notified other
              governments that the transfer to third parties of properties
              confiscated by the Cuban Government `would complicate any
              attempt to return them to their original owners'.

                (8) The international judicial system, as currently
              structured, lacks fully effective remedies for the wrongful
              confiscation of property and for unjust enrichment from the use
              of wrongfully confiscated property by governments and private
              entities at the expense of the rightful owners of the property.

                (9) International law recognizes that a nation has the 
              ability to provide for rules of law with respect to conduct
              outside its territory that has or is intended to have
              substantial effect within its territory.

                (10) The United States Government has an obligation to its
              citizens to provide protection against wrongful confiscations 
              by foreign nations and their citizens, including the provision
              of private remedies.

                (11) To deter trafficking in wrongfully confiscated property,
              United States nationals who were the victims of these
              confiscations should be endowed with a judicial remedy in the
              courts of the United States that would deny traffickers any
              profits from economically exploiting Castro's wrongful seizures.

          SEC. 302. LIABILITY FOR TRAFFICKING IN CONFISCATED PROPERTY CLAIMED
                            BY UNITED STATES NATIONALS.

            (a) CIVIL REMEDY- 

                (1) LIABILITY FOR TRAFFICKING- (A) Except as otherwise
              provided in this section, any person that, after the end of the
              3-month period beginning on the effective date of this title,
              traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban
              Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any
              United States national who owns the claim to such property for
              money damages in an amount equal to the sum of--

                    (i) the amount which is the greater of--

                        (I) the amount, if any, certified to the claimant by
                      the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under the
                      International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, plus
                      interest;

                        (II) the amount determined under section 303(a)(2),
                      plus interest; or

                        (III) the fair market value of that property,
                      calculated as being either the current value of the
                      property, or the value of the property when confiscated
                      plus interest, whichever is greater; and

                    (ii) court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

                (B) Interest under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be at the rate
              set forth in section 1961 of title 28, United States Code,
              computed by the court from the date of confiscation of the
              property involved to the date on which the action is brought
              under this subsection.

                (2) PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF THE CERTIFIED CLAIMS- There shall
              be a presumption that the amount for which a person is liable
              under clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) is the amount that is
              certified as described in subclause (I) of that clause.  The
              presumption shall be rebuttable by clear and convincing 
              evidence that the amount described in subclause (II) or (III) 
              of that clause is the appropriate amount of liability under 
              that clause.

                (3) INCREASED LIABILITY- (A) Any person that traffics in
              confiscated property for which liability is incurred under
              paragraph (1) shall, if a United States national owns a claim
              with respect to that property which was certified by the 
              Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the
              International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, be liable for
              damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).

                (B) If the claimant in an action under this subsection (other
              than a United States national to whom subparagraph (A) applies)
              provides, after the end of the 3-month period described in
              paragraph (1) notice to--

                    (i) a person against whom the action is to be initiated, or

                    (ii) a person who is to be joined as a defendant in the
                  action,

              at least 30 days before initiating the action or joining such
              person as a defendant, as the case may be, and that person,
              after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date the
              notice is provided, traffics in the confiscated property that 
              is the subject of the action, then that person shall be liable
              to that claimant for damages computed in accordance with
              subparagraph (C).

                (C) Damages for which a person is liable under subparagraph
              (A) or subparagraph (B) are money damages in an amount equal to
              the sum of--

                    (i) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A)(ii), and

                    (ii) 3 times the amount determined applicable under
                  paragraph (1)(A)(i).

                (D) Notice to a person under subparagraph (B)--

                    (i) shall be in writing;

                    (ii) shall be posted by certified mail or personally
                  delivered to the person; and

                    (iii) shall contain--

                        (I) a statement of intention to commence the action
                      under this section or to join the person as a defendant
                      (as the case may be), together with the reasons therefor;

                        (II) a demand that the unlawful trafficking in the
                      claimant's property cease immediately; and

                        (III) a copy of the summary statement published under
                      paragraph (8).

                (4) APPLICABILITY- (A) Except as otherwise provided in this
              paragraph, actions may be brought under paragraph (1) with
              respect to property confiscated before, on, or after the date 
              of the enactment of this Act.

                (B) In the case of property confiscated before the date of 
              the enactment of this Act, a United States national may not
              bring an action under this section on a claim to the 
              confiscated property unless such national acquires ownership of
              the claim before such date of enactment.

                (C) In the case of property confiscated on or after the date
              of the enactment of this Act, a United States national who,
              after the property is confiscated, acquires ownership of a 
              claim to the property by assignment for value, may not bring an
              action on the claim under this section.

                (5) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ACTIONS- (A) In the case of a United
              States national who was eligible to file a claim with the
              Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the
              International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but did not so file
              the claim, that United States national may not bring an action
              on that claim under this section.

                (B) In the case of any action brought under this section by a
              United States national whose underlying claim in the action was
              timely filed with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 
              under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 
              1949 but was denied by the Commission, the court shall accept
              the findings of the Commission on the claim as conclusive in 
              the action under this section.

                (C) A United States national, other than a United States
              national bringing an action under this section on a claim
              certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement
              Act of 1949, may not bring an action on a claim under this
              section before the end of the 2-year period beginning on the
              date of the enactment of this Act.

                (D) An interest in property for which a United States 
              national has a claim certified under title V of the
              International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 may not be the
              subject of a claim in an action under this section by any other
              person. Any person bringing an action under this section whose
              claim has not been so certified shall have the burden of
              establishing for the court that the interest in property that 
              is the subject of the claim is not the subject of a claim so
              certified.

                (6) INAPPLICABILITY OF ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE- No court of the
              United States shall decline, based upon the act of state
              doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action
              brought under paragraph (1) .

                (7) LICENSES NOT REQUIRED- (A) Notwithstanding any other
              provision of law, an action under this section may be brought
              and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such action may
              be enforced, without obtaining any license or other permission
              from any agency of the United States, except that this 
              paragraph shall not apply to the execution of a judgment
              against, or the settlement of actions involving, property
              blocked under the authorities of section 5(b) of the Trading
              with the Enemy Act that were being exercised on July 1, 1977, 
              as a result of a national emergency declared by the President
              before such date, and are being exercised on the date of the
              enactment of this Act.

                (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and for
              purposes of this title only, any claim against the Cuban
              Government shall not be deemed to be an interest in property 
              the transfer of which to a United States national required
              before the enactment of this Act, or requires after the
              enactment of this Act, a license issued by, or the permission
              of, any agency of the United States.

                (8) PUBLICATION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL- Not later than 60 days
              after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney
              General shall prepare and publish in the Federal Register a
              concise summary of the provisions of this title, including a
              statement of the liability under this title of a person
              trafficking in confiscated property, and the remedies available
              to United States nationals under this title.

            (b) AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY- An action may be brought under this
          section by a United States national only where the amount in
          controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000, exclusive of
          interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. In calculating $50,000 for
          purposes of the preceding sentence, the applicable amount under
          subclause (I), (II), or (III) of subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) may not be
          tripled as provided in subsection (a)(3).

            (c) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS- 

                (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this title, the
              provisions of title 28, United States Code, and the rules of 
              the courts of the United States apply to actions under this
              section to the same extent as such provisions and rules apply 
              to any other action brought under section 1331 of title 28,
              United States Code.

                (2) SERVICE OF PROCESS- In an action under this section,
              service of process on an agency or instrumentality of a foreign
              state in the conduct of a commercial activity, or against
              individuals acting under color of law, shall be made in
              accordance with section 1608 of title 28, United States Code.

            (d) ENFORCEABILITY OF JUDGMENTS AGAINST CUBAN GOVERNMENT- In an
          action brought under this section, any judgment against an agency 
          or instrumentality of the Cuban Government shall not be enforceable
          against an agency or instrumentality of either a transition
          government in Cuba or a democratically elected government in Cuba.

            (e) CERTAIN PROPERTY IMMUNE FROM EXECUTION- Section 1611 of title
          28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
          following new subsection:

            `(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1610 of this
          chapter, the property of a foreign state shall be immune from
          attachment and from execution in an action brought under section 
          302 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act 
          of 1996 to the extent that the property is a facility or
          installation used by an accredited diplomatic mission for official
          purposes.'.

            (f) ELECTION OF REMEDIES- 

                (1) ELECTION- Subject to paragraph (2)--

                    (A) any United States national that brings an action 
                  under this section may not bring any other civil action or
                  proceeding under the common law, Federal law, or the law of
                  any of the several States, the District of Columbia, or any
                  commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
                  States, that seeks monetary or nonmonetary compensation by
                  reason of the same subject matter; and

                    (B) any person who brings, under the common law or any
                  provision of law other than this section, a civil action or
                  proceeding for monetary or nonmonetary compensation arising
                  out of a claim for which an action would otherwise be
                  cognizable under this section may not bring an action under
                  this section on that claim.

                (2) TREATMENT OF CERTIFIED CLAIMANTS- (A) In the case of any
              United States national that brings an action under this section
              based on a claim certified under title V of the International
              Claims Settlement Act of 1949--

                    (i) if the recovery in the action is equal to or greater
                  than the amount of the certified claim, the United States
                  national may not receive payment on the claim under any
                  agreement entered into between the United States and Cuba
                  settling claims covered by such title, and such national
                  shall be deemed to have discharged the United States from
                  any further responsibility to represent the United States
                  national with respect to that claim;

                    (ii) if the recovery in the action is less than the 
                  amount of the certified claim, the United States national
                  may receive payment under a claims agreement described in
                  clause (i) but only to the extent of the difference between
                  the amount of the recovery and the amount of the certified
                  claim; and

                    (iii) if there is no recovery in the action, the United
                  States national may receive payment on the certified claim
                  under a claims agreement described in clause (i) to the 
                  same extent as any certified claimant who does not bring an
                  action under this section.

                (B) In the event some or all actions brought under this
              section are consolidated by judicial or other action in such
              manner as to create a pool of assets available to satisfy the
              claims in such actions, including a pool of assets in a
              proceeding in bankruptcy, every claimant whose claim in an
              action so consolidated was certified by the Foreign Claims
              Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims
              Settlement Act of 1949 shall be entitled to payment in full of
              its claim from the assets in such pool before any payment is
              made from the assets in such pool with respect to any claim not
              so certified.

            (g) DEPOSIT OF EXCESS PAYMENTS BY CUBA UNDER CLAIMS AGREEMENT- 
          Any amounts paid by Cuba under any agreement entered into between
          the United States and Cuba settling certified claims under title V
          of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 that are in
          excess of the payments made on such certified claims after the
          application of subsection (f) shall be deposited into the United
          States Treasury.

            (h) TERMINATION OF RIGHTS- 

                (1) IN GENERAL- All rights created under this section to 
              bring an action for money damages with respect to property
              confiscated by the Cuban Government--

                    (A) may be suspended under section 204(a); and

                    (B) shall cease upon transmittal to the Congress of a
                  determination of the President under section 203(c)(3) that
                  a democratically elected government in Cuba is in power.

                (2) PENDING SUITS- The suspension or termination of rights
              under paragraph (1) shall not affect suits commenced before the
              date of such suspension or termination (as the case may be), 
              and in all such suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken,
              and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the same
              effect as if the suspension or termination had not occurred.

            (i) IMPOSITION OF FILING FEES- The Judicial Conference of the
          United States shall establish a uniform fee that shall be imposed
          upon the plaintiff or plaintiffs in each action brought under this
          section. The fee should be established at a level sufficient to
          recover the costs to the courts of actions brought under this
          section. The fee under this subsection is in addition to any other
          fees imposed under title 28, United States Code.

          SEC. 303.  PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF CLAIMS TO CONFISCATED PROPERTY.

            (a) EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP- 

                (1) CONCLUSIVENESS OF CERTIFIED CLAIMS- In any action brought
              under this title, the court shall accept as conclusive proof of
              ownership of an interest in property a certification of a claim
              to ownership of that interest that has been made by the Foreign
              Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International
              Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22 U.S.C. 1643 and following).

                (2) CLAIMS NOT CERTIFIED- If in an action under this title a
              claim has not been so certified by the Foreign Claims 
              Settlement Commission, the court may appoint a special master,
              including the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, to make
              determinations regarding the amount and ownership of the claim.
              Such determinations are only for evidentiary purposes in civil
              actions brought under this title and do not constitute
              certifications under title V of the International Claims
              Settlement Act of 1949.

                (3) EFFECT OF DETERMINATIONS OF FOREIGN OR INTERNATIONAL
              ENTITIES- In determining the amount or ownership of a claim in
              an action under this title, the court shall not accept as
              conclusive evidence any findings, orders, judgments, or decrees
              from administrative agencies or courts of foreign countries or
              international organizations that declare the value of or
              invalidate the claim, unless the declaration of value or
              invalidation was found pursuant to binding international
              arbitration to which the United States or the claimant 
              submitted the claim.

            (b) AMENDMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1949-
          Title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22
          U.S.C. 1643 and following) is amended by adding at the end the
          following new section:
           `DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF CLAIMS REFERRED BY DISTRICT COURTS 
                                  OF THE UNITED STATES
            `SEC. 514.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and
          only for purposes of section 302 of the Cuban Liberty and 
          Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, a United State
          district court, for fact-finding purposes, may refer to the
          Commission, and the Commission may determine, questions of the
          amount and ownership of a claim by a United States national (as
          defined in section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
          (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996), resulting from the confiscation of 
          property by the Government of Cuba described in section 503(a),
          whether or not the United States national qualified as a national 
          of the United States (as defined in section 502(1)) at the time of
          the action by the Government of Cuba.'.

            (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this Act or in section 514 
          of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as added by
          subsection (b), shall be construed--

                (1) to require or otherwise authorize the claims of Cuban
              nationals who became United States citizens after their 
              property was confiscated to be included in the claims certified
              to the Secretary of State by the Foreign Claims Settlement
              Commission for purposes of future negotiation and espousal of
              claims with a friendly government in Cuba when diplomatic
              relations are restored; or

                (2) as superseding, amending, or otherwise altering
              certifications that have been made under title V of the
              International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 before the date of
              the enactment of this Act.

          SEC. 304. EXCLUSIVITY OF FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
                            CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE.

            Title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22
          U.S.C. 1643 and following), as amended by section 303, is further
          amended by adding at the end the following new section:
           `EXCLUSIVITY OF FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION CERTIFICATION
                                        PROCEDURE
            `SEC. 515. (a) Subject to subsection (b), neither any national of
          the United States who was eligible to file a claim under section 
          503 but did not timely file such claim under that section, nor any
          person who was ineligible to file a claim under section 503, nor 
          any national of Cuba, including any agency, instrumentality,
          subdivision, or enterprise of the Government of Cuba or any local
          government of Cuba, nor any successor thereto, whether or not
          recognized by the United States, shall have a claim to, participate
          in, or otherwise have an interest in, the compensation proceeds or
          nonmonetary compensation paid or allocated to a national of the
          United States by virtue of a claim certified by the Commission 
          under section 507, nor shall any district court of the United 
          States have jurisdiction to adjudicate any such claim.
            `(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to detract from
          or otherwise affect any rights in the shares of capital stock of
          nationals of the United States owning claims certified by the
          Commission under section 507.'.

          SEC. 305. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.

            An action under section 302 may not be brought more than 2 years
          after the trafficking giving rise to the action has ceased to occur.

          SEC. 306. EFFECTIVE DATE.

            (a) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsections (b) and (c), this title 
          and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on August 
          1, 1996.

            (b) SUSPENSION AUTHORITY- 

                (1) SUSPENSION AUTHORITY- The President may suspend the
              effective date under subsection (a) for a period of not more
              than 6 months if the President determines and reports in 
              writing to the appropriate congressional committees at least 15
              days before such effective date that the suspension is 
              necessary to the national interests of the United States and
              will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.

                (2) ADDITIONAL SUSPENSIONS- The President may suspend the
              effective date under subsection (a) for additional periods of
              not more than 6 months each, each of which shall begin on the
              day after the last day of the period during which a suspension
              is in effect under this subsection, if the President determines
              and reports in writing to the appropriate congressional
              committees at least 15 days before the date on which the
              additional suspension is to begin that the suspension is
              necessary to the national interests of the United States and
              will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.

            (c) OTHER AUTHORITIES- 

                (1) SUSPENSION- After this title and the amendments of this
              title have taken effect--

                    (A) no person shall acquire a property interest in any
                  potential or pending action under this title; and

                    (B) the President may suspend the right to bring an 
                  action under this title with respect to confiscated 
                  property for a period of not more than 6 months if the
                  President determines and reports in writing to the
                  appropriate congressional committees at least 15 days 
                  before the suspension takes effect that such suspension is
                  necessary to the national interests of the United States 
                  and will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.

                (2) ADDITIONAL SUSPENSIONS- The President may suspend the
              right to bring an action under this title for additional 
              periods of not more than 6 months each, each of which shall
              begin on the day after the last day of the period during which 
              a suspension is in effect under this subsection, if the
              President determines and reports in writing to the appropriate
              congressional committees at least 15 days before the date on
              which the additional suspension is to begin that the suspension
              is necessary to the national interests of the United States and
              will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.

                (3) PENDING SUITS- The suspensions of actions under paragraph
              (1) shall not affect suits commenced before the date of such
              suspension, and in all such suits, proceedings shall be had,
              appeals taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and
              with the same effect as if the suspension had not occurred.

            (d) RESCISSION OF SUSPENSION- The President may rescind any
          suspension made under subsection (b) or (c) upon reporting to the
          appropriate congressional committees that doing so will expedite a
          transition to democracy in Cuba.

My understanding, then, from the news reports and a reading of the Act, is
that what Clinton has done is:

	1. Allowed Title III to go into effect on 1 August by _not_ invoking
	   a suspension of the effective date under Sec 306(b)(1)
but
	2. Suspended the right to bring an action by invoking his
	   authority to do so under Sec 306(c)(1)(B).

Those Congresscritters made it very easy for Clinton to dance on both sides
of the street.

/john

	Who does Clinton have advising him??? Oh yeah...Hillary. No wonder he
will always land on both feet!

>Clinton has come down with his feet firmly on both sides of this issue.

>He has just announced that Americans may sue under the provisions of the
>Helms-Burton law, but not until February 1st.
    
    You don't mean after the election, do you? With plenty of time to
    renege? <smirk> How Clintonesque. Who wants to bet that if William
    Neverstick Clinton is reelected that he sticks to this one? Any takers?
    :-)

    You know what? This issue really bugged me a few months ago. Now I
    don't give give a bunch of dingo's kidneys about what happens
    concerning this bill or who it affects.
    
    Castro? Cuba? U.S. strongarm tactics? Who cares?

Well, now we've got a California piano tuner facing a $10,000 fine for
trading with the enemy.  Seems he collected a bunch of old pianos on
the cheap or donated and then took them to Cuba and tuned them.

Tell me, furriners, what would you think the international community
should do if, say, the state of North Dakota decides to nationalize
all the means of production, including that owned by furrin countries?

'Zat OK?  Ignore the thievin' Dakotans?  Maybe.

But then what if the Dakotans go out and pick _other_ furrin companies to
come in and make a profit operating the stolen property?

Ignore that, too?

    How can you say it was stolen?

    How about when the soviets came to power? How much was stolen then?

    How about the American revolution? How much was stolen then?

    How much did the Japanese steal?
    
    How much did the Red Chinese steal?
    
    Who can keep tabs on things like that? It's insane!

[Somewhere along the line, most likely due to inattention on my own part,
 I totally lost the thrust of this discussion.]

    That's okay. So did Jesse Helms.

EU hails Clinton climbdown on Cuba

  By Toby Helm, EU Correspondent, in Strasbourg and Hugh Davies in
  Washington 

EUROPEAN Union leaders last night welcomed a decision by President
Clinton to suspend for six months the most contentious part of his
anti-Cuban legislation but gave warning that Europe would still retaliate
against other aspects of the law.

The decision to suspend Title III of the Helms-Burton Act was a victory
for the 15 European Union member states which had said on Monday
they would implement a four-point retaliation plan, including
restrictions on visas for US businessmen travelling to Europe. If
implemented, Title III would allow Americans to sue in US courts any
foreigner making use of property confiscated since the 1959 Communist
revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power.

In backing away from the political and diplomatic risks of an anti-Cuba
law, Mr Clinton has tried to please both Cuban exiles, and allies such as
Britain, over action to scare off investors in the Communist island. He
took advantage of a clause in the Act that allows him to delay a flood of
lawsuits by Americans against European and Canadian firms doing
business with Cuba. With the EU threatening counter-suits, he declared it
in "the national interest" to postpone legal action by the US owners of
5,911 seized properties in Cuba.

An expected $100 billion (�65 million) worth of claims against foreign
companies are in the pipeline, and Mr Clinton has moved the day for
cases to begin from Nov 1 to Feb 1. This gives him room for manoeuvre
with the exiles, who are a powerful force in Florida and New Jersey, two
key states in the November election.

Mr Clinton's Republican rival, Robert Dole, had urged him to stop
wavering and allow "Americans whose property was illegally stolen" to
have their day in court immediately. Many exiles suspect that Mr Clinton
is secretly in favour of a deal with the Havana regime to benefit US
business interests.

Mr Clinton had originally opposed the legislation, but, conscious that key
votes were at stake, changed his mind when Cuba shot down two light
aircraft flown by exiles from Florida on Feb 22. If he wins the election, he
can delay the lawsuits again with another postponement.

'We do not agree that one country should seek to enforce its law on
people from other countries'

According to White house aides, the compromise will allow the
administration to work with allies over others ways of cracking down on
Cuba. However, it will be hard for Mr Clinton further to delay
implementation of an Act that has already changed some corporate
minds.

The Dutch insurance group ING has abandoned a plan to lend $30
million to Cuba's sugar-trading company. In addition, Cemex of Mexico
has pulled out of a deal to manage production of Cuban cement.

A senior US official said allies had been given "a six-month breather" and
he hoped no one would "rush to judgment". But a spokesman for the
Irish presidency of the EU said last night parts of the retaliation plan
would still take effect.

He pointed out that Title IV of Helms-Burton, which allows the US
authorities to bar businessmen and their families from the United States
if they have business links with Cuba, would be applied by the Clinton
administration. "Because of that, we will push on with plans for a
selective restriction of visas for Americans coming to Europe.

"We still need to make it clear that the nature and effect of this legislation
if unacceptable. We do not agree that one country should seek to enforce
its law on people from other countries."

Concern over the Helms-Burton law grew in Britain last week after two
British businessmen and their families were warned by letter that they
would not be allowed into the US because of their business links with
Cuba.

The EU is also expected to stick to its demand that the extra-territorial
nature of the Helms-Burton law should be investigated by the World
Trade Organisation. But threats to draw up EU-wide "blocking statutes"
that would encourage people to break the Helms-Burton law and give
them legal protection when being sued under Title III are now less likely
to be taken forward by member states, though Spain has said it will still
draw up such a measure.

 Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

Clinton grants, then suspends, right to sue foreigners over Cuba seizures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 N.Y. Times News Service

WASHINGTON (Jul 17, 1996 03:05 a.m. EDT) -- President Clinton on Tuesday
granted U.S. citizens the right to sue foreign companies that are using
American plants seized by Cuba over 35 years ago, then immediately suspended
those suits for at least six months.

Clinton's election-year compromise, his aides said, was an effort to
demonstrate that he is eager to tighten the economic noose around Fidel
Castro while defusing the criticism from Washington and the threats of
retaliation from the European Union, Canada, and Mexico.

These countries have accused the United States of using threats of legal
judgments against foreign companies to force other governments into helping
isolate Castro. Those countries have vowed to impose equal penalties against
American companies, especially after Clinton moved last week to deny visas
to executives and major shareholders of the foreign companies.

By delaying the legal actions, Clinton puts off that conflict with America's
closest allies until after the elections in November. Meanwhile, he can
argue in Florida and New Jersey, two key states with large Cuban-American
populations, that he is working to speed the collapse of Castro's communist
government.

Administration officials conceded that Clinton's action on Tuesday, taken
hours before a midnight deadline set by the Helms-Burton law, was a muddled
outcome to a highly charged issue.

"This was classic Clinton," one of his top aides said after the president
sought recommendations from his Cabinet in a late-night meeting at the White
House on Monday. "It's creative, but it runs the risk of looking like a
waffle."

The move was immediately criticized as such by Bob Dole, the president's
likely Republican opponent in November. "President Clinton's continued
indecision until the last possible moment demonstrates, once again, that
this president is rudderless when it comes to standing up for American
principles around the world," Dole said.

Even with delayed enforcement, the measure could still have a real impact,
Clinton aides said. The prospect of litigation is likely to discourage
companies around the world from risking investment in Cuba, cutting off one
of Castro's few sources of new capital -- selling his country's decrepit
infrastructure.

Clinton's aides insisted on Tuesday that by delaying the suits, they have
six months to convince the Europeans to act to isolate Castro, or risk a
decision by the White House to let the lawsuits go forward.

"If we had allowed the suits today, it would begin a cycle of retaliation
and counter-retaliation with our allies that would divert attention from the
primary issue: Fidel Castro," said Sandy Berger, the deputy national
security adviser, who pressed Clinton on Monday night to take this course.
"Now, we have the means to focus their minds."

But if the action was intended to end the criticism from abroad that
Washington was being an economic bully, reaching beyond its borders, it was
not immediately successful.

Britain said on Tuesday that it would consider tougher restrictions against
visas for American citizens. This was a direct response to the decision a
week ago to ban several of its citizens from entering the United States
because they are major shareholders in companies that "traffic" in American
properties nationalized by Cuba after Castro and the Communists came to
power in 1959.

The Helms-Burton law, passed by Congress signed by the president last March
after Cuba shot down two small planes piloted by anti-Castro demonstrators,
defines that "trafficking" so broadly that it even covers Mexican and
Italian companies that have taken over Cuba's crumbling telephone system,
parts of which were built by the ITT Corp. in the 1950s.

Canada said on Tuesday that it would go ahead with legislation giving
Canadian firms the right to retaliate if American courts penalize them for
using equipment in Cuba that once belonged to ITT Corp. and American mining
companies.

"The situation remains exactly as it did yesterday," Reuters quoted a
spokesman for the European Commission as saying. "European companies still
have the threat of legal action against them."

Dole, however, was critical from the opposite point of view. "Allowing
American citizens whose property was illegally stolen by the Castro regime
to use American courts to seek justice is the right thing to do," he said.

Several of Clinton's economic advisers argued in the Oval Office on Monday
night that the president should use his powers to waive entirely the section
of the Helms-Burton law that gives American citizens the right to sue.

They were concerned, they said, that the law itself sets a precedent that
could boomerang on American companies: It establishes an "extraterritorial"
law, punishing, for example, Canadian companies for their activities in a
third country. Washington condemned such actions during the Arab boycott of
American companies that did business with Israel, arguing that such actions
amount to blackmail.

For that reason, Clinton initially opposed the Helms-Burton bill. But when
the American-Cuban aircraft were shot down in February, he signed the
legislation over the objections of some foreign-policy advisers.

In recent months, carrying out the bill has become an issue of enormous
political sensitivity. Cuban-Americans are a relatively small constituency,
but they are highly influential in two hotly contested states.

"They are very disappointed, and so am I," said Rep. Robert G. Torricelli of
New Jersey, the Democratic candidate for the Senate seat being vacated by
Bill Bradley. "The Castro government is weaker than it is perceived, and
this was a chance to bring an end to that government."

Clinton has also been seeking a way to deflect Dole's criticism that he is
coddling a communist neighbor, even if Cuba represents little threat to
American security.

The problem has been that the United States is alone in its strategy of
economically isolating Cuba, in hopes of speeding the collapse of the Castro
government. Europe and Canada argue that Cuba should be treated much as
Washington treats China -- with economic engagement intended to slowly bring
about reform. Years of arguments between Washington and its allies over this
strategy with Cuba have failed to narrow their differences.

"I think that the U.S. is totally isolated on this one," Lloyd Axworthy,
Canada's foreign minister, said last week. "Cuba has actually changed a
great deal, though Washington will not easily acknowledge that."

In the days before Clinton made the decision, pressure mounted from overseas
to delay the suits or prevent them altogether. The European Union threatened
retaliatory steps that it knew would alarm large multinational corporations
that have little interest in Cuba or its market, but that have much at stake
in Europe and Canada.

The allies threatened to bring the United States before the World Trade
Organization, and to order their own courts not to enforce judgments against
companies that emanated from the United States.

Clinton decided on Tuesday to appoint a special envoy, who has yet to be
named, to try to convince America's European allies to change their view.
The envoy, Berger said, would try to get cooperation in providing assistance
to human rights groups, dissidents and journalists in Cuba, as the
administration did recently when it granted $500,000 to Free House, a human
rights group.

The allies will also be urged to withhold economic assistance and to promote
a code of business practices similar to the Sullivan principles, which
companies operating in South Africa in the era of apartheid were asked to
subscribe to in an effort to assure non-discriminatory hiring.

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net

Looks to me like Helms got snookered.

It appears that Clinton merely used a provision of the law to his
advantage. Why decide now what you can put off after the election. And he
can delay another 6 months after that.

The point of interest is how Helms allowed this loophole to be in the
bill. When I heard that Clinton had agreed with Helms on this or any
other issue, it din't seem possible.

This is a perfect bill for Clinton. It sounds tough but doesn't require
tough action.

TTom

    > Clinton has come down with his feet firmly on both sides of this issue.
    
    If he puts the Act in force now, he alienates most or all of our
    trading partners and initiates a trade war of epic proportions.
    
    If he voids the act, he alienates Congress.
    
    So, in the style that the Doctah claims is proper for a leader, Slick
    brokers a compromise in order to buy time.  He applies the needle to
    our trading partners instead of the whip, he goes along with Congress,
    and all the Rightwyngers can do is piss and moan about how wishy-washy
    he is.  I gotta admire the consistent hypocrisy of the Right.

    Well, the EU is angrier than Canada and Mexico is. Seems they intend to
    make things hard on US travelers regardless of Clinton's latest
    decision.

    EU leaders are probably ecstatic at the prospect of a jingoistic fight
    to take attention away from their ineptness.  Exactly the same scenario
    as in the US in fact.
    

    >So, in the style that the Doctah claims is proper for a leader, Slick
    >brokers a compromise in order to buy time.  
    
     Bwahahaha! There's no compromise here. Clinton's playing both sides of
    the fence. A compromise would have been to actually make a decision
    that incorporated elements from both sides in a clear policy. This is a
    classic example of election year politics. They might as well put a
    cardboard cutout picture of the President in macho poses; it's about as
    meaningful.

    
      Clinton is tacticly correct.  Castro, of course, is laughing
     at the whole thing, in between torturing the latest dissidents.
     But Clinton wins two ways : he has a no-cost play for Florida's
     electoral votes, a close state.  Castro has no votes in the USA.
     And second, he gets to yank the chains of Europeans, always a
     crowd-pleaser here.  Every irate Canadian bluster on TV gets him
     points with the US electorate.  It's a win-win for Sliq, and Jesse
     handed it to him, the fool.
    
      bb

    Astute as always, Mr B.

    {A Canadian Bluster}

Tory tit for tat: Canadians suggest compensation for American Revolution.
		  Americans reply: Compensation was handled in the Treaty
		  of Paris in 1783.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press

TORONTO (Jul 24, 1996 6:35 p.m. EDT) -- In a sarcastic swipe at U.S. policy
on Cuba, two members of Parliament proposed a bill Wednesday that would
enable Canadians to claim compensation for lands seized from their Tory
ancestors during the American revolution.  However, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee replied that a commission was set up by Britain as
part of the Treaty of Paris to compensate loyalists who moved to Canada.

The proposed bill, to be introduced when Parliament reconvenes in September,
intentionally mirrors the Helms-Burton act passed by the U.S. Congress
earlier this year.

Helms-Burton allows American citizens to file lawsuits in U.S. courts
seeking compensation from foreign companies whose operations in Cuba make
use of property expropriated by Fidel Castro's government after the 1959
revolution.

The act also allows the United States to deny visas to executives of such
companies. Top officials of one Canadian firm, Sherritt International,
already have been notified they will be banned as of late August.

The two Parliament members, John Godfrey and Peter Milliken, said their bill
would follow the precedent of Helms-Burton by allowing descendants of
loyalists who fled to Canada during the American revolution to reclaim
property that was "confiscated unjustly and illegally."

Godfrey and Milliken, in a statement, said their bill "is consistent with
the new moral standard in international commerce set by Helms-Burton."

"Descendants of the approximately 80,000 American loyalists who fled the
future United States of America and whose property was confiscated by
self-constituted revolutionary courts should be equally entitled to
prosecute U.S. citizens who now benefit from or enjoy seized loyalist
estates," the statement said.

Godfrey and Milliken said they are among 3 million Canadians descended from
loyalist settlers.

Godfrey said that if the bill is passed, he would press for return of his
family's ancestral hone in Virginia, while Milliken said he would claim
property in the Mohawk Valley of New York.

Alan Patt, legislative assistant to Godfrey, said the main purpose of the
bill, for now, "is to make a point."

But he said the two lawmakers are serious about drafting it and introducing
it in Parliament in September, and have received encouragement from several
colleagues.

Patt said Prime Minister Jean Chretien's office has been informed, "and they
haven't stopped us," Patt said.

Canada, along with Western Europe and Mexico, has been a vociferous critic
of Helms-Burton, saying the United States is wrong to try to enforce its
foreign policy with measures penalizing third countries.

Sen. Jesse Helms, the Republican senator who co-sponsored Helms-Burton, has
assailed the Canadian stance, saying its companies are more interested in
profits than pressuring Castro into reforms.

Mark Theissen, a spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that
Helms chairs, said of the Godfrey-Milliken bill, "Close, but no cigar."

He said Canadians who fled the American revolution should have received
compensation from a commission set up by Britain after the Treaty of Paris
was signed in 1783.

"These gentlemen have been paid," Theissen said. "If they haven't been paid,
they should take it up with John Major."

    This is really so idiotic. I can't believe it.