PR: 3.50 -- ICCAS

Americans have taken many different positions on Cuba since the victory of Fidel’s Cuban Revolution at the end of 1959. However, for the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies (ICCAS), Castro-bashing seems to be the only task on its agenda. If nothing else, ICCAS’ findings help illustrate the outer perimeters of the debate over the true nature of the Castro regime and the roots of U.S. policy towards Cuba.

In spite of its title, it would be a mistake to view ICCAS as a typical academic undertaking. The institute’s unbridled anti-Castro rhetoric ignores any positive aspects that could result from the initiation of full diplomatic relations with Havana and/or the maintenance of open channels of discussion. Failure to adequately present a variety of positions concerning Cuba makes ICCAS’s arguments characteristically weak, if not predictably unprofessional.

The academic figure most associated with the group is Professor Jaime Suchliki, who for good reason has not been particularly known for his balanced scholarship or moderate predilections. His biases are reflected in his most recent writing “Implicaciones de Eliminar del Embargo.” In this analysis, Suchliki states that Castro should be forced to endure the embargo until he is removed from office. He argues that any sign of dialogue or compromise between the U.S. and Cuba would reveal Washington’s inability to contain a dictatorship, even one within 90 miles of Florida. Suchliki also asserts that providing any food or medicine to the island, or allowing remittances to be sent home from the U.S., would only strengthen Castro and provide him and his successors with the necessary resources to maintain their grip on power. However, his opinions reflect the thinking of extremists (especially those in right wing Castro-bashing lobbying groups such as the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF)), not the mainstream U.S. outlook nor that of many Cuban-Americans.

ICCAS has never revisited its exaggerated pro-embargo position nor welcomed a civil discussion of any alternative approach. Moreover, ICCAS scholarship does not mention what the U.S. embargo has not accomplished. For four decades, the U.S. embargo has failed to oust Castro from power and pave the way for a democracy. On the contrary, Castro has successfully defied the power of the United States against threats both from without and within. Such a suggestion might call for a gradual development of intermediate economic and political arrangements with Cuba that could deepen diplomatic ties in a process of bridge-building, democratization and the pluralization of Cuban society. Some Cuban experts believe that because Castro has tolerated a number of advances in his country’s economy (such as legalizing the dollar and allowing for self-employment), he might be amenable to further political changes, made through a process which could be facilitated by the gradual removal of the embargo.

Conversely, Suchliki fervently hopes that the United States will intervene and bring down Castro, constantly reminding his American readers that the U.S. should maintain a hard-line policy towards Cuba. Recently, in a Voice of America (VOA) radio interview with Michael Bowman, Suchliki was quoted as having said, “Fidel Castro for the past 40 years has opposed the U.S., has supported terrorism in various countries and in various parts of the world, and has oppressed his people. So there are significant similarities between the two regimes (Castro’s and Saddam’s).” He then adds, “Many Cuban exiles are now convinced that, barring a major provocation from Havana, the United States will never intervene in Cuba – and that if a regime change is to occur, Cubans themselves will have to lead the charge.” Moreover, he ardently bashes Castro in order to prove his points. For example, during a speech at The Center of Inter-American Studies of Saint Leo College, Suchliki stated, “I want to look at the post-, post-Castro scenario when Fidel is in hell and has staged a coup against the devil and is now in charge of hell, and his brother Raul is helping him over there!” Clearly, Suchliki implies that he will stop at nothing to bring down Cuba’s dictator; even if it means resorting to vulgarized scholarship and making flagrant speeches that fail to address alternative approaches with any sense of sobriety.

Although some scholars on ICCAS’s roster may have not written as rabidly against Castro’s Cuba as Suchliki, only a few of them have tried to evaluate Havana’s overall score card with any objectivity. In fact, it can be argued that greater diversity may exist in the papers and publications coming out of the University of Havana and/or Florida International University than in the University of Miami’s ICCAS. An example of ICCAS’ lack of balance can be found in a recent report which claimed, “Afro-Cubans have the worst jobs and are increasingly disenfranchised,” while commenting upon Castro’s execution of three Afro-Cubans for the attempted hijacking of a ferry a number of weeks ago. This questionable extrapolation implies that the motives behind the arrest and execution of the three Afro-Cubans were racist: an otherwise explosive charge, given traditional writings on the subject, which was not accompanied by a shred of evidence to buttress its highly controversial thesis.

There are many additional examples of ICCAS’s one-sided arguments, which can be found in its occasional papers, academic work, and its bimonthly newsletters that deliver propaganda featuring mainly radical anti-Castro sources. For instance, in an article entitled “Castro and Terrorism, A Chronology,” Suchliki states,

This charge fails to ask whether a long series of U.S. assassination attempts against Castro, unabating hostility and decades of strategies aimed at economic asphyxiation were not enough to stimulate some degree of animosity in Havana for the White House.

Another ICCAS article asserting a similar stance, entitled “Cuba on Israel: Policies and Statements,” declares that Castro’s “policy [to] abet, train, and provide [a] safe haven in Cuba for hundreds of Palestinian and Arab terrorists supports an anti-Israel and anti-American position.” Without any supporting documentation, ICCAS makes the assertion that there are links between Arab terrorism and Cuba, which should be of great concern to Miami’s wealthy and influential Jewish community. While a useful fundraising technique, such fulminations hardly reflect a serious effort at scholarly analysis.

ICCAS further elaborates upon Cuba’s alleged terrorist connections in other articles, presumably in order to taint Castro’s image. For example, ICCAS’s article “Cuba Supports Iraq,” charged that, “[a] Cuban parliament member has condemned American aggressive conspiracies and schemes that [mean to] undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and national unity” – hardly a telling indictment. Additionally, an article entitled “The Other Axis of Evil: Cuba and North Korea” quotes Castro saying to the visiting North Korean president, “Your concerted efforts to lead the struggle of the Korean people to foil the hostile acts of the imperialist powers and build socialism and the country earns admiration and respect.” This, of course, is standard boiler plate diplomatic rhetoric used in receiving a foreign dignitary. But ICCAS translates this almost innocuous statement into the basis of a sinister terrorist cabal between the two allegedly terrorist operations.

Of course, with its inflammatory charges, ICCAS does not bother to explain Fidel Castro’s motives or to identify U.S. policy which might have influenced the dictator’s strategies. In fact, ICCAS has removed all blame from the U.S. by declaring in its article, “Cuba’s Crackdown the Result of Internal Developments, Not U.S. Policy” that “[Castro’s] violent crackdown on dissidents [does not stem from] U.S. policies and action.”

One of ICCAS’s more outlandish pieces of research, “Excerpts of Fidel Castro’s Speech on the 49th Anniversary of the Attack on the Moncada Barracks,” artfully cuts out less controversial portions of his speech in an attempt to stress Castro’s anti-American statements. The publication quotes Castro as saying, “our current struggle becomes especially important as we find ourselves up against the hostility and aggression of a (U.S.) government which is the sum of the most overwhelming powers that has ever existed. It is nevertheless completely lacking any ethical, social, and humanist values which an endangered species like ours needs to survive.” However, Castro had more sober viewpoints about Cuba’s relationship with the people of the United States, which go unmentioned in ICCAS’ analysis:

“I have always said – and I shall never regret it – that the American people, idealist by nature due to its ethical values and its traditions of love of liberty will be one of the Cuban people’s best friends when it learns the whole truth about Cuba’s honest and heroic struggle. It showed this in an impressive way with its support for Elian’s return. We shall always be on the American people’s side in its struggle to preserve the lives and interests of its citizens who might become innocent victims of criminal terrorist attacks. On this historical date for Cubans, I can assure you that we wish for a sincere, respectful and fraternal friendship between the peoples of Cuba and the United States.”

What message does ICCAS’ level of performance send to an American audience? Presenting such a distorted and incomplete interpretation of the motives behind Havana’s policy-making hardly demonstrates an admirable research methodology. When discussing Cuba, ICCAS needs to recognize that there are legitimate interpretations of Cuban policies and realities that may differ from its own. ICCAS should emulate the Washington Times and other responsible conservative institutions which at times provide different sides of the debates, instead of printing ideological posturings that hermetically exclude all other positions.

The constant bombardment of American public opinion with egregious statements about Castro’s Cuba, loaded with hatred and skewed information, scarcely promotes productive U.S.-Cuban relations. Such malignant rhetoric not only contributes to the suppression of free inquiry, but also taints the reputation of its sponsor, the University of Miami. In order to generate effective and efficient insights on the subject of U.S.-Cuban relations, one must acknowledge the numerous interpretations of the Revolution’s intricacies. Many of these issues necessitate a comprehensive analysis that probes the multifaceted complexities of modern Cuban history from that revolution until today.

The Cuban Transition Project (CTP) is an attempt by ICCAS to recommend policy for a post-Castro regime. The project plans to offer new scholarship on the challenges of implementing a democracy in Cuba, which hopefully will provide multiple open-minded assessments. But even this initiative does not appear to be completely motivated by humanitarian concerns. The CTP recently received one million dollars from USAID with the help of anti-Castro advocates Representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who have always been identified with the radical element of the Cuban-American leadership. For years, legislators have fought against any removal of the embargo and vehemently opposed sanctifying normal relations with Castro. One should consider how these lawmakers will influence the CTP which, according to Suckliki, “[will] not tell the Cuban people what to do in the future, [but] will be aimed at providing recommendations.” The suspicion is that the CTP will be used as a future platform by right-wing Cuban Americans to secure their own interests in a post-Castro era. Such a postulation could easily become a reality, especially with notorious ideologues like Manuel Cutillas influencing ICCAS and the CTP project.

Manuel Cutillas, chairman of Miami’s principle anti-Castro organization (CANF), recently retired chief executive of Bacardi, Ltd., and an advisory board member of ICCAS has heavily lobbied Congress to implement the Helms Burton Act. In the past, he accomplished this through Otto Reich, who was then on Bacardi’s roster as a consultant. Mr. Reich, who at the time was a partner in the lobbying firm Brock Group, received $110,000 from the Bacardi Corporation to advocate additions to Helms Burton in Title III, which would allow non-Americans (i.e. Cuban nationals who were not U.S. citizens at the time,) to sue foreign companies who had taken over their interests in Cuba. Bacardi would be a direct beneficiary of such legislation. A staunch supporter of Cuban-American hard-liners, Reich has had shady dealings in own his past, standing accused of fabricating news reports regarding the Sandinista government in the 1980s and being a backer of the coup that briefly overthrew Venezuela’s President Chavez in April 2002. Cutillas also has relations with other extremist right-wing Cuban-Americans such as Ignacio Sanchez, a lawyer who not only helped push for the Helms-Burton legislation, but actively contributes to the Free Cuba PAC, another well-financed anti-Castro lobbying group.

At the present time, it is too early to tell whether the CTP will become another Castro-bashing arm of ICCAS, or a legitimate facility that advances orthodox scholarship on U.S.-Cuban relations. Support from extremists such as Manuel Cutillas and Representatives Diaz-Balart and Ros-Lehtinen makes the latter scenario seem unlikely; however, this does not imply that solid, noteworthy scholarship will not eventually emerge from the CTP’s ramparts. Hopefully, the exploration of genuine policy options will override political motives in ICCAS’ new project.

Ultimately, academics should be prepared to have their audiences make up their own minds after being presented with reliable facts and analysis. This means that ICCAS must provide credible evidence as well as an objective analysis to illustrate its point of view. Thus far, ICCAS and its associated programs have cast a negative shadow on the University of Miami. Although the CTP may allow some room for renewed faith in ICCAS scholarship, the organization needs to address multiple viewpoints in its future publications on Cuba. Otherwise, ICCAS will continue to lead the ranks of a number of extremist Miami-based facilities that fail to address both sides of an open U.S.-Cuban policy.

This analysis was prepared by Joshua E. Lagos and Laura H. Lively, Research Associates for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Issued July 29, 2003.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone (202) 216-9261, fax (202) 223-6035, or email coha@coha.org