U.S. Policy on Cuba

Re your March 23 editorial: Supporting measures that supposedly “are meant to benefit the people of Cuba” (President Clinton’s cosmetic gesture of removing sanctions he imposed in 1996, even as Washington’s embargo remains intact), The Times in fact supports this action as an element to strengthen direct U.S. intervention in Cuba.

That’s what it means when your editorial hails Clinton’s initiative as proof “that the United States is moving to pave the way for an eventual transition to democracy” in Cuba. What right does Washington have to “pave” the way to anything in Cuba? The road Clinton and eight previous U.S. presidents have sought to “pave” in Cuba--through embargo, invasion, assassination, lies, deceit and other acts of bullying--is that of capitalism, not democracy.

After all, Kuwait’s monarchy forbids women to vote, Saudi Arabia’s royal family rules without the facade of elections and Indonesia’s dictatorship rules by military decree. All receive arms from Washington because of the flow of billions of U.S. investment profits. It’s this--the sale of a country--that Cuba won’t permit, which earns Havana unrelenting hostility from the U.S. government.

JON HILLSON

Los Angeles

* The Clinton administration announcement of adjustments in U.S. policy toward Cuba is a welcome glimmer of light at the end of a long, dark tunnel (March 20). The policy shift should help facilitate the reunification of Cuban families, ease the humanitarian impact of the embargo on the Cuban people and encourage the academic, scientific, religious and humanitarian exchanges that are so important in the context of the estrangement between the governments.

The administration should consider the broad support for these moves, including that of a reinvigorated moderate Cuban American community, as backing for further efforts to bridge the rift between the U.S. and Cuba. It should develop the humanitarian trade relations called for in the Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)-Esteban Torres (D-Pico Rivera) legislation, which would exempt food and medicine sales from the embargo outright. It should also explore possibilities for cooperation on issues that link the two countries, like drug interdiction and immigration. And finally, it should expand exchanges and contacts between private and public citizens in the two countries.

MICHAEL O’HEANEY

Cuba Program Director

Global Exchange

San Francisco