International Flap on Cuba Law

The drumbeat of international recriminations against Washington for mixing trade with politics ought to make Congress and the Clinton administration rethink the controversial Helms-Burton Act. There is time to review its implementation.

On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo jointly criticized the new federal law. “Like Canada,” Zedillo said in Ottawa, “Mexico considers inadmissible any measure . . . that instead of tearing down barriers raises them to the detriment of investment and international trade.”

A week earlier, the Organization of American States, usually compliant with U.S. policies, condemned Helms-Burton, with 23 member countries opposed to it, 10 abstaining and only Washington in favor. The same week, European officials of the World Trade Organization met with their American counterparts to discuss aspects of the law, which many Europeans say potentially violates WTO rules that the United States has agreed to honor.

The law, introduced by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), allows Cuban Americans to bring suit in U.S. federal courts against any foreign firm doing business in Cuba that benefits from property confiscated from the exiles after Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution. Critics of the law say it chills international trade and has aspects of a secondary boycott, a practice counter to liberalizing world trade. The law also has some facets that are petty, like prohibiting the offending business people and their families from entering the United States.

The issue is not the long-standing U.S. export embargo on trade with Cuba. Successive presidencies have supported that for 34 years, and Castro has given them sound political reasons for doing so. The issue is whether Washington should embrace a law that makes foreign countries and their citizens liable for doing business in Cuba. Canada has protested under provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico is expected to follow suit.

Precise guidelines on implementation of the law are expected to be published soon. Even then the White House might delay enforcement of the claims provisions. President Clinton should be sure his administration can bear the ramifications of the law he has signed.