A new editorial in the American newspaper The New York Times, published Monday in print, is critical on the strategies that from the United States seek to overthrow the government in Havana.
The paper refers to the Helms-Burton Act, signed by President Clinton after Cuba shot down two US aircraft, noting that “has served as the foundation for the $264 million the United States has spent in the last 18 years trying to instigate democratic reforms on the island”.
“Far from accomplishing that goal, the initiatives have been largely counterproductive. The funds have been a magnet for charlatans, swindlers and good intentions gone awry. The stealthy programs have increased hostility between the two nations, provided Cuba with a trove of propaganda fodder and stymied opportunities to cooperate in areas of mutual interest”, says the The New York Times.
The article titled In Cuba, misadventures while trying to overthrow a regime, reported the change experienced in the politics of the United States regarding the Island with the arrival of President George W. Bush in 2001. Since that time, the US Agency for International Development, USAID, became the primary vehicle for pro-democracy work in Cuba, says the newspaper.
“Spending on initiatives to oust the government surged from a few million a year to more than $20 million in 2004. Most contracts were awarded, without much oversight, to newly formed Cuban-American groups. One used funds on a legally questionable global lobbying effort to persuade foreign governments to support America’s unpopular embargo. Other grantees sent loads of comic books to the American diplomatic mission in Havana, bewildering officials there. The money was also used to buy food and clothes, but there was no way to track how much reached relatives of political prisoners, the intended recipients”, it adds.
The American newspaper also mentions the “dire consequences” that for the Obama administration for a project initiated during the Bush administration to expand Internet access in Cuba has had. The visit of a State Department official in Havana in 2009 to restore the postal service and cooperate on migration issues was “the highest-level contact with the Cuban government in several years”.
Related Posts
But the arrest on the island of subcontractor Alan Gross, who traveled to Cuba as part of a USAID initiative “to smuggle communication equipment” exposed a “dishonest two-phase policy” by Washington, explains The New York Times. Cuban officials “took a rigid stance on American prisoner”, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Monday’s editorial also cites the research by Associated Press on the so-called ZunZuneo program, developed by the firm Creative Associates International between 2009 and 2012 to provide a platform for information dissemination as a means of “organizing crowds” on the island.
Also, the American newspaper recalls the revelations of the AP on sending young Latin Americans to Cuba to identify individuals who may be “agents of social change.”The contractors, also hired by Creative Associates, received quick pointers on how to evade Cuban intelligence and were paid as little as $5.41 an hour for work that could have easily landed them in prison., it adds.
The text reads that “The American money has provided food and comfort to some relatives of political prisoners, and been used to build limited access to satellite-based Internet connections. But it has done more to stigmatize than to help dissidents”.
The New York Times considers that American policy makers should find ways to empower ordinary Cubans by expanding study-abroad programs, professional exchanges and investment in the new small businesses cropping up around the island. They should continue to promote Internet connectivity, but realize that accomplishing that goal on a large scale will require coordination with the Cuban government.
“Perhaps most important, Washington should recognize that the most it can hope to accomplish is to positively influence Cuba’s evolution toward a more open society. That is more likely to come about through stronger diplomatic relations than subterfuge”, ends the editorial by The New York Times.
Authors
Redacción OnCuba,
OnCuba
