This ironic US allegation (considering the 40 years of terrorism waged
by the US on Cuba, including biological warfare in the form of
livestock and crop diseases) just illustrates again the hypocrisy of
current US policy and action and the associated abuse of the concept
of "terrorism" for political ends.

Cuba's support for insurrectionary movements in Central America during
the 1980s (against brutal US-supported dictatorships) and its
involvement in struggles in Africa (e.g. Angola's war of resistance
against South African aggression - this aggression being again with US
support) are the probable historical grounds for this accusation.
(Interestingly, in terms of the terrorism in 1980's Central America,
only the US was convicted by the International Court of Justice for
the "unlawful use of force" - i.e. terrorism - in its waging of proxy
war against Nicaragua, which deliberately focussed on "soft targets"
[schools, hospitals and the like].)  Again, who or what action is
labelled "terrorist" is a matter of political expediency.

The inclusion of Cuba on the current US list has been contested by
various informed commentators. I paste an article below by Cubanist
Wayne Smith. Some other examples:

Keeping Things in Perspective - Is Cuba a terrorist nation
http://www.ciponline.org.nxlkhost.com/cuba/main/perspectiveonterrorism.htm

Baltimore Sun April 24, 2001 New Book on NSA Sheds Light on Secrets -
U.S. Terror Plan Called Cuba Invasion Pretext, By Scott Shane and Tom.
Bowman, Sun Staff
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story

There have also been many statements issued by the Cuban government
regarding its position on terrorism and its concerns regarding current
US actions and rhetoric. For example, see the item listed on this
page:
http://sundial.ccs.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0110&L=lacyork&F=&S=&P=448
Many other items on Cuba and the US "war on terrorism" can be found in
the archives of the CERLAC listserv:
http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/lacyork.html

No Evidence That Cuba is a "Terrorist Nation"   By Wayne S. Smith

 Why, one wonders, is Cuba still on the list of  terrorist states? We
don't like its system of  government and have many other
disagreements  with it,  but a terrorist state it isn't. Perhaps one
could  argue that   it was in the past. Perhaps. But not now.

 On the basis of what evidence does the State  Department include it
on the list? Well, first of all,  the State Department says Cuba
harbors Basque  terrorists. But if that were so, surely the Spanish
government would be concerned as well. In fact,  however, these few
aging Basques are living peacefully  in Cuba as the result of an
agreement between the  Spanish and Cuban governments, one requested
under  former Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez and for which  the
Spanish government has   expressed appreciation to  the Cuban. Madrid
had rather have these particular  Basques living in Cuba. And they are
not involved in activities against Spain. Clearly, then, no grounds
for the terrorist label here.

 Second, the State Department complains that Cuba has  contacts with
the various guerrilla groups in  Colombia. But many governments,
including the  Venezuelan - and the Colombian itself, have contacts
with those groups. Nothing necessarily sinister in  that. What is of
importance is that there is no  evidence that Cuba is inciting the
guerrillas in Colombia to violence or supplying them with arms. On
the contrary, the State Department complains that Cuba  has
facilitated meetings, i.e., peace talks, between  the guerrillas and
the government. But shouldn't that  merit applause rather than a place
on the list of  terrorist   states? In fact, isn't the U.S. itself
interested in fostering such contacts?

 And finally, the Department complains that Cuba is  harboring a
number of fugitives from U.S. justice.  True, there are a handful of
such fugitives on the  island. But as Cuban officials point out, there
is no   extradition treaty between the two nations. If the  U.S. wants
these fugitives back, the best way to  proceed would be to negotiate
such a treaty, something  the U.S. has not done. And meanwhile, there
is no evidence that the fugitives are involved in activities  against
the U.S., or, for that matter, activities  against anyone. They are
simply living in Cuba. That  hardly seems sufficient grounds to label
Cuba "a   terrorist state."

 In fact, none of the evidence is in the least  convincing. If this is
all the State Department can  come up with, Cuba should be removed
from the list of  rogue states immediately. That of course would
cause  howls of rage among the right-wing exiles in Miami,  and no one
in the State Department or the  Administration itself has shown any
willingness to stand up to that tiny but strident special interest
group. It should be noted, however, that there are  possible unwanted
consequences to keeping Cuba on the  list. In June, for example, there
were reports of Chinese shipments of arms and explosives to Cuba. At
first the Administration seemed to regard the reports  as a low-key
bargaining chip that might be used  against China at no cost to the
U.S. Thus, in hearings  on June 11 before the House Foreign Affairs
Committee,  the Assistant Secretary of State for Asia seemed to
confirm the reports and said Washington "was very  concerned with this
PLA [Peoples Liberation Army]  cooperation and movement of military
equipment to  Cuba."

 Almost too late, someone in the Administration  recalled that under a
1996 amendment to the 1962  Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. is
required to impose  a trade embargo against any country which
provides  military equipment, however ordinary andconventional,  to
any state on the list of terrorist nations.

 Obviously, the Bush Administration has no wish to  sever our trade
relations with China - and certainly  not over so petty an issue. It
quickly backtracked and  announced that it had no evidence "that
China   had  transferred lethal military equipment to Cuba."

 It was helped by a Chinese statement categorically  denying that any
military shipments at all had been  made to Cuba. But China reserves
the right to provide  small arms to Cuba. So does Russia, which at
some point might well provide replacements for certain of  the aging
weapons it gave to Cuba years ago. Should  there be transfers of
weapons which would in any way  threaten the U.S., Washington would
and should take issue. But if, as is likely, we were dealing with
shipments of small arms, it would most decidedly not  be in the
interest of the U.S. to break trade  relations with the shipper. Which
simply points up the fact that foolish practices such as keeping Cuba
on  the list of terrorist states do have a cost.

Wayne S. Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Center for  International
Policy in Washington, D.C. and a  long-time expert on Cuba

I hope this is useful.

- Marshall Beck  Admin Assistant, CERLAC



Joy Moncrieffe wrote:

  Dear All:

  I was surprised to hear the US Sec. of Defense claim
  that Cuba has been known to harbour terrorists.  Does
  anyone know the basis for this? Given the US' desire
  to expand its campaign to all countries that are on
  its `terrorist' list (though the rest of the coalition
  is unlikely to agree), there could be serious
  consequences for Cuba and implications for the region.
   Anyone care to comment?  Of course, you may have
  discussed this already...I have not been able to read
  all the recent commentary.

  Regards,
  Joy