A Joint Panel to Decide on Cuban Claims

Pope John Paul II will visit Cuba next month. Communist dictator Fidel Castro has consented to the pope saying a public mass on January 25. This historic visit raises, once again, one of the most vexing problems that has confronted the United States: What should be the American policy toward Cuba?

There are those who say that we should repeal the embargo that prohibits virtually all trade with Cuba by U.S. companies or citizens. After all, the argument goes, we trade with Communist China, and we traded with the Soviet Union. Those regimes killed tens of millions of their citizens and worked actively for the overthrow of the United States. Cuba is no worse. Furthermore, many foreign policy experts feel that by trading with Cuba, the United States would hasten the demise of one of the oldest and most brutal communist dictatorships. The U.S. economy is so big and so close that it would bowl over the communist police state. However, that approach sweeps aside some important considerations.

When Castro took over Cuba in 1959 by force of arms, the United States was at first supportive of the young revolutionary. He replaced Fulgencio Batista, a corrupt leader with friendly relations with the mob. Castro had not yet declared his communist beliefs, but soon he began to take over the companies and property of Cuban citizens and that of Americans who had businesses and homes on the island.

As Castro’s new government took over these properties, imprisoning or killing those who resisted his rule, the United States protested his actions, beginning nearly 40 years of estrangement. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled their homes for the United States. The United States, through our Central Intelligence Agency, aided anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the ill-conceived and poorly executed Bay of Pigs invasion, which attempted to topple Castro. This disaster was followed by an endless series of nasty surprises: the Cuban missile crisis, the spread of terrorism throughout the hemisphere, the chaotic 1980 Mariel boat lift and immigration games involving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Still, with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and with our current trade with China, the strategic significance of our enmity toward Castro is reduced. The idea that Russia or China would use Cuba as a military or terrorist staging post close to our shore does not seem so likely.

There remains one important matter on the table that cannot be swept aside easily. It concerns the property that Castro confiscated when he took over this island nation 90 miles off of Florida. There are thousands of claims filed in federal court in Washington for these properties and their market value is now estimated at $7 billion. It is for this reason that the Helms-Burton Cuba legislation was passed and signed into law by President Clinton. Known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, it provides that the buyers of property confiscated by Castro will be liable for financial damages to previous owners whose claims have been supported by the U.S. courts. In essence, businesses from Canada, Mexico or Europe would be trafficking in stolen goods. The American government should not turn a blind eye toward these property claims of the original owners.

One way to address these claims would be to establish a joint Cuba-U.S. commission to tax imports and exports between Cuba and all foreign entities and to place the revenues generated in a legal claims fund. This fund, which would be jointly administered by a commission of Cubans and Americans, could then pay off the claims, gradually reducing them over time. Such a plan also addresses the very real problem that the Castro government is in a financial mess and incapable of paying out the billions required. For the American and other foreign companies that wish to trade, it provides a way for them to respect the property claims of those who were wronged. It also would make a way for the United States and Cuba to have official dealings.

If Castro rejected such an offer--which would encourage trade and pay for some of the past wrongs--then the United States would keep up the embargo. The Cuban government would then be held solely liable to play the claims. When Castro’s government falls, which will happen as surely as day follows night, its successor would then have to return the property to original owners. It would be easier to begin the process now.