Makeover: Castro is No ‘Moderate’; Cuba is Still a Threat

(Washington, D.C.): On the eve of Canadian Prime Minister Jean
Chretien‘s visit to Cuba
earlier this week — a state visit that proved far more conducive to Fidel’s manipulation than did
Pope John Paul II’s tour of the island last January⁽¹⁾ — a
penetrating insight was offered into the
accelerating and odious campaign to rehabilitate Castro and to resuscitate his regime: One of the
prime-movers behind that campaign, former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Atlantic Command
General John Sheehan (USMC, Ret.), revealed that in a private conversation
held with the
Cuban dictator last month, he told Castro “we need to keep the hard-liners in Havana
and
Miami from doing something stupid.“

This statement is stunning not only for its condescending moral equivalence between the
totalitarian communists in Havana and those expatriates and others in South Florida committed to
restoring freedom to Cuba. It also speaks volumes about the General’s judgment and his policy
recommendations that he believes that there is any harder-liner in the Cuban capital than Fidel
Castro. This is, of course, fatuous nonsense. To paraphrase a famous British parliamentarian:

To the Left of Castro, there is the wall. Fidel and his brother, Raoul, bear principal
responsibility for maintaining the doctrinaire orthodoxy of the regime that bears their name.

Hardline on Display

Evidence of just how unwarranted are efforts by Gen. Sheehan and others aimed at
transforming
Castro into a “man with whom the U.S. can do business” was on display at the welcoming
ceremony for Prime Minister Chretien. On that occasion, Fidel used the following formulations to
denounce the United States:

“No state should think it has the right to kill another people by hunger and sickness.
That is genocide. It is converting a nation into a ghetto and applying a new version of
the Holocaust. [Those who impose the embargo] should be brought before
international tribunals and tried as war criminals.”⁽²⁾

While the Canadian leader tried to put a good face on Castro’s exploitation of his visit
as a
vehicle for anti-American diatribes, his assertions about the importance promoting freedom in
Cuba enjoyed on his agenda rang hollow. In his own opening statement, the Prime Minister
referred to his policy of “constructive engagement” and reminded Fidel that, “Its framework is the
joint declaration that our governments signed last year. It promotes discussions on a wide range
of issues, such as universal human rights.”

Of course, the Canadians got nowhere with the Cuban dictator on this
front. Though they
claim to have spent fully one-third of the time with Castro discussing human rights — notably, the
possibility of clemency for the four political prisoners who found their way to Canada after being
expelled from Cuba’s jails — the most they could point to was a pledge by Fidel to consider the
idea. In short, “constructive engagement” has been shown once again to mean one
thing: A
rubric for a Western government to provide economic and political life support for a
repressive regime on the latter’s terms. Apart from the totalitarians, the
only others to benefit
(oftentimes very modestly) from such Faustian deals are the Western government’s most
unscrupulous businesses.

Who’s Who of the ‘Destructive Engagers’

As the New York Times reported last week, href=”#N_3_”>⁽³⁾ preeminent among such business in Canada is
Sherritt International:

“Sherritt International Corporation of Toronto is reportedly the single most active
foreign company, [in Cuba] with $800 million committed. The company produces 40
percent of Cuba’s oil and is also involved in mining, power generation, cell phones,
tourism and agriculture, said Patrice Merrin Best, senior vice president.”

The Times reports that American companies — having discovered the
short-term benefits of
doing business with authoritarian governments like Fidel’s in places like China and Vietnam,
countries that guarantee opportunities to exploit underpaid workforces without fear of strikes,
worker protection or workplace safety regulations or other inconveniences — are increasingly
insistent about following Sherritt’s example:

“Just last month, a delegation of mid-level officers from major corporations —
including the Mobil Oil Corporation, Texaco Inc.,
Pharmacia & Upjohn,
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Continental Grain, the Case
Corporation, a unit of
Tenneco, and Caterpillar Inc. — was the official guest of
Mr. Castro and his top
ministers in Havana.”

What About the Asymmetric Threat?

Arguably even more insidious than the political cover Gen. Sheehan is giving to American
businesses — too many of whom are willing to disregard human rights and long-term national
interest in their pursuit of near-term profits⁽⁴⁾ — is the
dubious professional judgment he is
rendering about the threat posed by Cuba.

As the Casey Institute recently noted,⁽⁵⁾ Gen. Sheehan
has declared: “Cuba does not have an
offensive capability. It is zero — none.” When challenged by a reporter for the Washington
Times
about the potential offensive capability Castro’s suspected chemical and biological weapons
programs would represent, Gen. Sheehan implied that Castro had put such concerns to rest when
the dictator told the General: “What do you think, we are stupid? We don’t want to give the
U.S. a pretext for an attack.” Gen. Sheehan went on to say:

“Castro invited him to investigate [his] country’s biotechnology operations. ‘You pick
the buildings,’ mindful that Gen. Sheehan had considerable information on the subject
based on his prior duties as a Cuba-watcher for the Pentagon. Gen. Sheehan said eight
buildings were devoted to biotechnology. In one he visited, he said, technicians were
trying to develop an AIDS vaccine.” (Emphasis added.)

It can only be hoped that others, if not Gen. Sheehan, would have learned the painful
lesson
taught by Saddam Hussein’s skillful dissembling and manipulation of on-site inspections in Iraq:
There is no way even qualified personnel — let alone a general without such credentials
—
can be sure that a biotech facility seemingly developing AIDS vaccines at one point in time
was not using the same fermenters and other scientific (including, perhaps, genetic
engineering) equipment to produce biological weapons hours before, or that it will not do so
within hours of the inspectors’ visit.

The good news is that Secretary of Defense William Cohen has insisted on a review of a draft
Pentagon report to the Congress that the Miami Herald was told last month would
track with
Gen. Sheehan’s low-balling of the threat posed by Castro’s Cuba. Presumably, this review will
take into account the “unconventional or asymmetrical methods” that the Secretary warned in a
National Press Club speech in March are more likely to brought to bear by future adversaries than
traditional conventional threats. Any unpoliticized assessment href=”#N_6_”>⁽⁶⁾ of Fidel’s asymmetric
capabilities — including his ticking time-bomb nuclear power plants abuilding in Juragua,
his
information warfare-capable signals intelligence facilities at Lourdes, his support for and
involvement in narco-terrorism as well as the danger posed by chemical or biological weapons
capabilities — would recognize the Cuban government as an abiding threat to the U.S.
and
its interests.⁽⁷⁾

The bad news is that another Clinton-appointed Commander-in-Chief, General
Charles Wilhelm
(USMC) of Southern Command, has publicly embraced the central finding of the
as-yet-unreleased Defense Department report to Congress. On 27 April, Reuters carried a news
item
reporting that the day before Gen. Wilhelm had, in the agency’s words, said: “Cuba is no longer a
military threat …. Its armed forces [are] no longer capable of threatening the United States or its
neighbors.” According to Reuter’s, General Wilhelm believes that the “most serious challenge
facing the U.S. military in Latin America and the Caribbean is the worsening conflict in
Colombia.” He even goes so far as to suggest that the American military may be able to
cooperate with Castro’s armed forces in, of all things, counter-narcotics.

The Bottom Line

Interestingly, this news item appeared shortly before the Pentagon press spokesman, Kenneth
Bacon, confirmed that — in light of “[Iraqi] language that is less bellicose, less threatening and
[Saddam Hussein’s] actions [that] have been more receptive to UN Special Commission
inspectors” — the Pentagon is considering recommending cuts in the U.S. military presence in the
Persian Gulf.

The two developments seem to be of a piece. In both the Iraqi and Cuban cases, it
appears
that what is animating Defense Department estimates of the challenge posed to U.S.
security and interests has less to do with a clear-eyed assessment of an abiding — if
somewhat difficult to quantify — asymmetric threat, than it does with hard politico-military
realities:

The Pentagon is strapped for funds and is being asked to mount intensive efforts — from
maintaining a huge presence in the Gulf with less-and-less littoral support and involving itself ever
more in the Nation’s drug war — without the necessary resources and in the face of absurd
policies promulgated by Clinton political authorities. The latter include the notion that
Saddam
Hussein is being contained (“in his box”)⁽⁸⁾ and that it is
possible to cooperate with Fidel Castro —
a leading drug trafficker — in counter-narcotics operations.

Just as Saddam Hussein is not staying in his box, Castro is no
moderate. American policies
that assume otherwise will cost this Nation dearly — perhaps in terms of lives and national
treasure, certainly in terms of the United States international standing as a bulwark for
freedom and an opponent of patient, determined and unremittingly ruthless totalitarians.

– 30 –

1. See the Casey Institute’s Perspective entitled
Postmortem on the Pontiff’s Cuban Tour: On
Balance, Freedom Benefitted More Than Fidel (⁽¹⁾ — a
penetrating insight was offered into the
accelerating and odious campaign to rehabilitate Castro and to resuscitate his regime: One of the
prime-movers behind that campaign, former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Atlantic Command
General John Sheehan (USMC, Ret.), revealed that in a private conversation
held with the
Cuban dictator last month, he told Castro “we need to keep the hard-liners in Havana
and
Miami from doing something stupid.“

This statement is stunning not only for its condescending moral equivalence between the
totalitarian communists in Havana and those expatriates and others in South Florida committed to
restoring freedom to Cuba. It also speaks volumes about the General’s judgment and his policy
recommendations that he believes that there is any harder-liner in the Cuban capital than Fidel
Castro. This is, of course, fatuous nonsense. To paraphrase a famous British parliamentarian:

To the Left of Castro, there is the wall. Fidel and his brother, Raoul, bear principal
responsibility for maintaining the doctrinaire orthodoxy of the regime that bears their name.

Hardline on Display

Evidence of just how unwarranted are efforts by Gen. Sheehan and others aimed at
transforming
Castro into a “man with whom the U.S. can do business” was on display at the welcoming
ceremony for Prime Minister Chretien. On that occasion, Fidel used the following formulations to
denounce the United States:

“No state should think it has the right to kill another people by hunger and sickness.
That is genocide. It is converting a nation into a ghetto and applying a new version of
the Holocaust. [Those who impose the embargo] should be brought before
international tribunals and tried as war criminals.”⁽²⁾

While the Canadian leader tried to put a good face on Castro’s exploitation of his visit
as a
vehicle for anti-American diatribes, his assertions about the importance promoting freedom in
Cuba enjoyed on his agenda rang hollow. In his own opening statement, the Prime Minister
referred to his policy of “constructive engagement” and reminded Fidel that, “Its framework is the
joint declaration that our governments signed last year. It promotes discussions on a wide range
of issues, such as universal human rights.”

Of course, the Canadians got nowhere with the Cuban dictator on this
front. Though they
claim to have spent fully one-third of the time with Castro discussing human rights — notably, the
possibility of clemency for the four political prisoners who found their way to Canada after being
expelled from Cuba’s jails — the most they could point to was a pledge by Fidel to consider the
idea. In short, “constructive engagement” has been shown once again to mean one
thing: A
rubric for a Western government to provide economic and political life support for a
repressive regime on the latter’s terms. Apart from the totalitarians, the
only others to benefit
(oftentimes very modestly) from such Faustian deals are the Western government’s most
unscrupulous businesses.

Who’s Who of the ‘Destructive Engagers’

As the New York Times reported last week, href=”#N_3_”>⁽³⁾ preeminent among such business in Canada is
Sherritt International:

“Sherritt International Corporation of Toronto is reportedly the single most active
foreign company, [in Cuba] with $800 million committed. The company produces 40
percent of Cuba’s oil and is also involved in mining, power generation, cell phones,
tourism and agriculture, said Patrice Merrin Best, senior vice president.”

The Times reports that American companies — having discovered the
short-term benefits of
doing business with authoritarian governments like Fidel’s in places like China and Vietnam,
countries that guarantee opportunities to exploit underpaid workforces without fear of strikes,
worker protection or workplace safety regulations or other inconveniences — are increasingly
insistent about following Sherritt’s example:

“Just last month, a delegation of mid-level officers from major corporations —
including the Mobil Oil Corporation, Texaco Inc.,
Pharmacia & Upjohn,
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Continental Grain, the Case
Corporation, a unit of
Tenneco, and Caterpillar Inc. — was the official guest of
Mr. Castro and his top
ministers in Havana.”

What About the Asymmetric Threat?

Arguably even more insidious than the political cover Gen. Sheehan is giving to American
businesses — too many of whom are willing to disregard human rights and long-term national
interest in their pursuit of near-term profits⁽⁴⁾ — is the
dubious professional judgment he is
rendering about the threat posed by Cuba.

As the Casey Institute recently noted,⁽⁵⁾ Gen. Sheehan
has declared: “Cuba does not have an
offensive capability. It is zero — none.” When challenged by a reporter for the Washington
Times
about the potential offensive capability Castro’s suspected chemical and biological weapons
programs would represent, Gen. Sheehan implied that Castro had put such concerns to rest when
the dictator told the General: “What do you think, we are stupid? We don’t want to give the
U.S. a pretext for an attack.” Gen. Sheehan went on to say:

“Castro invited him to investigate [his] country’s biotechnology operations. ‘You pick
the buildings,’ mindful that Gen. Sheehan had considerable information on the subject
based on his prior duties as a Cuba-watcher for the Pentagon. Gen. Sheehan said eight
buildings were devoted to biotechnology. In one he visited, he said, technicians were
trying to develop an AIDS vaccine.” (Emphasis added.)

It can only be hoped that others, if not Gen. Sheehan, would have learned the painful
lesson
taught by Saddam Hussein’s skillful dissembling and manipulation of on-site inspections in Iraq:
There is no way even qualified personnel — let alone a general without such credentials
—
can be sure that a biotech facility seemingly developing AIDS vaccines at one point in time
was not using the same fermenters and other scientific (including, perhaps, genetic
engineering) equipment to produce biological weapons hours before, or that it will not do so
within hours of the inspectors’ visit.

The good news is that Secretary of Defense William Cohen has insisted on a review of a draft
Pentagon report to the Congress that the Miami Herald was told last month would
track with
Gen. Sheehan’s low-balling of the threat posed by Castro’s Cuba. Presumably, this review will
take into account the “unconventional or asymmetrical methods” that the Secretary warned in a
National Press Club speech in March are more likely to brought to bear by future adversaries than
traditional conventional threats. Any unpoliticized assessment href=”#N_6_”>⁽⁶⁾ of Fidel’s asymmetric
capabilities — including his ticking time-bomb nuclear power plants abuilding in Juragua,
his
information warfare-capable signals intelligence facilities at Lourdes, his support for and
involvement in narco-terrorism as well as the danger posed by chemical or biological weapons
capabilities — would recognize the Cuban government as an abiding threat to the U.S.
and
its interests.⁽⁷⁾

The bad news is that another Clinton-appointed Commander-in-Chief, General
Charles Wilhelm
(USMC) of Southern Command, has publicly embraced the central finding of the
as-yet-unreleased Defense Department report to Congress. On 27 April, Reuters carried a news
item
reporting that the day before Gen. Wilhelm had, in the agency’s words, said: “Cuba is no longer a
military threat …. Its armed forces [are] no longer capable of threatening the United States or its
neighbors.” According to Reuter’s, General Wilhelm believes that the “most serious challenge
facing the U.S. military in Latin America and the Caribbean is the worsening conflict in
Colombia.” He even goes so far as to suggest that the American military may be able to
cooperate with Castro’s armed forces in, of all things, counter-narcotics.

The Bottom Line

Interestingly, this news item appeared shortly before the Pentagon press spokesman, Kenneth
Bacon, confirmed that — in light of “[Iraqi] language that is less bellicose, less threatening and
[Saddam Hussein’s] actions [that] have been more receptive to UN Special Commission
inspectors” — the Pentagon is considering recommending cuts in the U.S. military presence in the
Persian Gulf.

The two developments seem to be of a piece. In both the Iraqi and Cuban cases, it
appears
that what is animating Defense Department estimates of the challenge posed to U.S.
security and interests has less to do with a clear-eyed assessment of an abiding — if
somewhat difficult to quantify — asymmetric threat, than it does with hard politico-military
realities:

The Pentagon is strapped for funds and is being asked to mount intensive efforts — from
maintaining a huge presence in the Gulf with less-and-less littoral support and involving itself ever
more in the Nation’s drug war — without the necessary resources and in the face of absurd
policies promulgated by Clinton political authorities. The latter include the notion that
Saddam
Hussein is being contained (“in his box”)⁽⁸⁾ and that it is
possible to cooperate with Fidel Castro —
a leading drug trafficker — in counter-narcotics operations.

Just as Saddam Hussein is not staying in his box, Castro is no
moderate. American policies
that assume otherwise will cost this Nation dearly — perhaps in terms of lives and national
treasure, certainly in terms of the United States international standing as a bulwark for
freedom and an opponent of patient, determined and unremittingly ruthless totalitarians.

– 30 –

1. See the Casey Institute’s Perspective entitled
Postmortem on the Pontiff’s Cuban Tour: On
Balance, Freedom Benefitted More Than Fidel (⁽¹⁾ — a
penetrating insight was offered into the
accelerating and odious campaign to rehabilitate Castro and to resuscitate his regime: One of the
prime-movers behind that campaign, former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Atlantic Command
General John Sheehan (USMC, Ret.), revealed that in a private conversation
held with the
Cuban dictator last month, he told Castro “we need to keep the hard-liners in Havana
and
Miami from doing something stupid.“

This statement is stunning not only for its condescending moral equivalence between the
totalitarian communists in Havana and those expatriates and others in South Florida committed to
restoring freedom to Cuba. It also speaks volumes about the General’s judgment and his policy
recommendations that he believes that there is any harder-liner in the Cuban capital than Fidel
Castro. This is, of course, fatuous nonsense. To paraphrase a famous British parliamentarian:

To the Left of Castro, there is the wall. Fidel and his brother, Raoul, bear principal
responsibility for maintaining the doctrinaire orthodoxy of the regime that bears their name.

Hardline on Display

Evidence of just how unwarranted are efforts by Gen. Sheehan and others aimed at
transforming
Castro into a “man with whom the U.S. can do business” was on display at the welcoming
ceremony for Prime Minister Chretien. On that occasion, Fidel used the following formulations to
denounce the United States:

“No state should think it has the right to kill another people by hunger and sickness.
That is genocide. It is converting a nation into a ghetto and applying a new version of
the Holocaust. [Those who impose the embargo] should be brought before
international tribunals and tried as war criminals.”⁽²⁾

While the Canadian leader tried to put a good face on Castro’s exploitation of his visit
as a
vehicle for anti-American diatribes, his assertions about the importance promoting freedom in
Cuba enjoyed on his agenda rang hollow. In his own opening statement, the Prime Minister
referred to his policy of “constructive engagement” and reminded Fidel that, “Its framework is the
joint declaration that our governments signed last year. It promotes discussions on a wide range
of issues, such as universal human rights.”

Of course, the Canadians got nowhere with the Cuban dictator on this
front. Though they
claim to have spent fully one-third of the time with Castro discussing human rights — notably, the
possibility of clemency for the four political prisoners who found their way to Canada after being
expelled from Cuba’s jails — the most they could point to was a pledge by Fidel to consider the
idea. In short, “constructive engagement” has been shown once again to mean one
thing: A
rubric for a Western government to provide economic and political life support for a
repressive regime on the latter’s terms. Apart from the totalitarians, the
only others to benefit
(oftentimes very modestly) from such Faustian deals are the Western government’s most
unscrupulous businesses.

Who’s Who of the ‘Destructive Engagers’

As the New York Times reported last week, href=”#N_3_”>⁽³⁾ preeminent among such business in Canada is
Sherritt International:

“Sherritt International Corporation of Toronto is reportedly the single most active
foreign company, [in Cuba] with $800 million committed. The company produces 40
percent of Cuba’s oil and is also involved in mining, power generation, cell phones,
tourism and agriculture, said Patrice Merrin Best, senior vice president.”

The Times reports that American companies — having discovered the
short-term benefits of
doing business with authoritarian governments like Fidel’s in places like China and Vietnam,
countries that guarantee opportunities to exploit underpaid workforces without fear of strikes,
worker protection or workplace safety regulations or other inconveniences — are increasingly
insistent about following Sherritt’s example:

“Just last month, a delegation of mid-level officers from major corporations —
including the Mobil Oil Corporation, Texaco Inc.,
Pharmacia & Upjohn,
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Continental Grain, the Case
Corporation, a unit of
Tenneco, and Caterpillar Inc. — was the official guest of
Mr. Castro and his top
ministers in Havana.”

What About the Asymmetric Threat?

Arguably even more insidious than the political cover Gen. Sheehan is giving to American
businesses — too many of whom are willing to disregard human rights and long-term national
interest in their pursuit of near-term profits⁽⁴⁾ — is the
dubious professional judgment he is
rendering about the threat posed by Cuba.

As the Casey Institute recently noted,⁽⁵⁾ Gen. Sheehan
has declared: “Cuba does not have an
offensive capability. It is zero — none.” When challenged by a reporter for the Washington
Times
about the potential offensive capability Castro’s suspected chemical and biological weapons
programs would represent, Gen. Sheehan implied that Castro had put such concerns to rest when
the dictator told the General: “What do you think, we are stupid? We don’t want to give the
U.S. a pretext for an attack.” Gen. Sheehan went on to say:

“Castro invited him to investigate [his] country’s biotechnology operations. ‘You pick
the buildings,’ mindful that Gen. Sheehan had considerable information on the subject
based on his prior duties as a Cuba-watcher for the Pentagon. Gen. Sheehan said eight
buildings were devoted to biotechnology. In one he visited, he said, technicians were
trying to develop an AIDS vaccine.” (Emphasis added.)

It can only be hoped that others, if not Gen. Sheehan, would have learned the painful
lesson
taught by Saddam Hussein’s skillful dissembling and manipulation of on-site inspections in Iraq:
There is no way even qualified personnel — let alone a general without such credentials
—
can be sure that a biotech facility seemingly developing AIDS vaccines at one point in time
was not using the same fermenters and other scientific (including, perhaps, genetic
engineering) equipment to produce biological weapons hours before, or that it will not do so
within hours of the inspectors’ visit.

The good news is that Secretary of Defense William Cohen has insisted on a review of a draft
Pentagon report to the Congress that the Miami Herald was told last month would
track with
Gen. Sheehan’s low-balling of the threat posed by Castro’s Cuba. Presumably, this review will
take into account the “unconventional or asymmetrical methods” that the Secretary warned in a
National Press Club speech in March are more likely to brought to bear by future adversaries than
traditional conventional threats. Any unpoliticized assessment href=”#N_6_”>⁽⁶⁾ of Fidel’s asymmetric
capabilities — including his ticking time-bomb nuclear power plants abuilding in Juragua,
his
information warfare-capable signals intelligence facilities at Lourdes, his support for and
involvement in narco-terrorism as well as the danger posed by chemical or biological weapons
capabilities — would recognize the Cuban government as an abiding threat to the U.S.
and
its interests.⁽⁷⁾

The bad news is that another Clinton-appointed Commander-in-Chief, General
Charles Wilhelm
(USMC) of Southern Command, has publicly embraced the central finding of the
as-yet-unreleased Defense Department report to Congress. On 27 April, Reuters carried a news
item
reporting that the day before Gen. Wilhelm had, in the agency’s words, said: “Cuba is no longer a
military threat …. Its armed forces [are] no longer capable of threatening the United States or its
neighbors.” According to Reuter’s, General Wilhelm believes that the “most serious challenge
facing the U.S. military in Latin America and the Caribbean is the worsening conflict in
Colombia.” He even goes so far as to suggest that the American military may be able to
cooperate with Castro’s armed forces in, of all things, counter-narcotics.

The Bottom Line

Interestingly, this news item appeared shortly before the Pentagon press spokesman, Kenneth
Bacon, confirmed that — in light of “[Iraqi] language that is less bellicose, less threatening and
[Saddam Hussein’s] actions [that] have been more receptive to UN Special Commission
inspectors” — the Pentagon is considering recommending cuts in the U.S. military presence in the
Persian Gulf.

The two developments seem to be of a piece. In both the Iraqi and Cuban cases, it
appears
that what is animating Defense Department estimates of the challenge posed to U.S.
security and interests has less to do with a clear-eyed assessment of an abiding — if
somewhat difficult to quantify — asymmetric threat, than it does with hard politico-military
realities:

The Pentagon is strapped for funds and is being asked to mount intensive efforts — from
maintaining a huge presence in the Gulf with less-and-less littoral support and involving itself ever
more in the Nation’s drug war — without the necessary resources and in the face of absurd
policies promulgated by Clinton political authorities. The latter include the notion that
Saddam
Hussein is being contained (“in his box”)⁽⁸⁾ and that it is
possible to cooperate with Fidel Castro —
a leading drug trafficker — in counter-narcotics operations.

Just as Saddam Hussein is not staying in his box, Castro is no
moderate. American policies
that assume otherwise will cost this Nation dearly — perhaps in terms of lives and national
treasure, certainly in terms of the United States international standing as a bulwark for
freedom and an opponent of patient, determined and unremittingly ruthless totalitarians.

– 30 –

1. See the Casey Institute’s Perspective entitled
Postmortem on the Pontiff’s Cuban Tour: On
Balance, Freedom Benefitted More Than Fidel (No.
98-C 17, 29 January 1998).

2. This statement is a helpful reminder of the folly of creating a
permanent war crimes tribunal
that is bound to be susceptible to abuse by those like Castro who should be in the dock but will,
instead, find it a convenient vehicle for attacks on this country, at the very least, in the court of
world opinion.

3. See “Wish You Were Here; Marxist Cuba Beckons, And U.S.
Capitalists Chomp at the Bit,”
New York Times, 22 April 1998.

4. See in this regard, the Center’s Decision Brief
entitled Mirabile Dictu: Tom Friedman Is
Right on American Industry’s Shortsightedness Concerning U.S. National
Security (No. 98-C
66, 20 April 1998).

5. See the Casey Institute’s Perspective entitled
Castro’s Cuba: A Classic ‘Asymmetric’ Threat
(No. 98-C 59, 3 April 1998).

6. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled
Clinton Legacy Watch # 23: Confession of a
Politicizer (No. 98-D 72, 28 April 1998).

7. For more on these asymmetric threats from Cuba, see the Casey
Institute’s Perspective entitled
Asymmetric Threat: Defector Confirms Moscow’s Lourdes Complex in Cuba
Compromised
Sensitive Gulf War Battle Plans (No. 98-C 64, 10
April 1998).

8. See Sen. Lott Shows How and Secures Means to
Topple Saddam (No. 98-D 73, 28 April
1998) and Father of a Free Iraq? Iraqi National Congress’ Chalabi Details a
Program for
Liberating His Country From Saddam (No. 98-P 39,
4 March 1998).98-C17.html”>No.
98-C 17, 29 January 1998).

2. This statement is a helpful reminder of the folly of creating a
permanent war crimes tribunal
that is bound to be susceptible to abuse by those like Castro who should be in the dock but will,
instead, find it a convenient vehicle for attacks on this country, at the very least, in the court of
world opinion.

3. See “Wish You Were Here; Marxist Cuba Beckons, And U.S.
Capitalists Chomp at the Bit,”
New York Times, 22 April 1998.

4. See in this regard, the Center’s Decision Brief
entitled Mirabile Dictu: Tom Friedman Is
Right on American Industry’s Shortsightedness Concerning U.S. National
Security (No. 98-C
66, 20 April 1998).

5. See the Casey Institute’s Perspective entitled
Castro’s Cuba: A Classic ‘Asymmetric’ Threat
(No. 98-C 59, 3 April 1998).

6. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled
Clinton Legacy Watch # 23: Confession of a
Politicizer (No. 98-D 72, 28 April 1998).

7. For more on these asymmetric threats from Cuba, see the Casey
Institute’s Perspective entitled
Asymmetric Threat: Defector Confirms Moscow’s Lourdes Complex in Cuba
Compromised
Sensitive Gulf War Battle Plans (No. 98-C 64, 10
April 1998).

8. See Sen. Lott Shows How and Secures Means to
Topple Saddam (No. 98-D 73, 28 April
1998) and Father of a Free Iraq? Iraqi National Congress’ Chalabi Details a
Program for
Liberating His Country From Saddam (No. 98-P 39,
4 March 1998).98-C17.html”>No.
98-C 17, 29 January 1998).

2. This statement is a helpful reminder of the folly of creating a
permanent war crimes tribunal
that is bound to be susceptible to abuse by those like Castro who should be in the dock but will,
instead, find it a convenient vehicle for attacks on this country, at the very least, in the court of
world opinion.

3. See “Wish You Were Here; Marxist Cuba Beckons, And U.S.
Capitalists Chomp at the Bit,”
New York Times, 22 April 1998.

4. See in this regard, the Center’s Decision Brief
entitled Mirabile Dictu: Tom Friedman Is
Right on American Industry’s Shortsightedness Concerning U.S. National
Security (No. 98-C
66, 20 April 1998).

5. See the Casey Institute’s Perspective entitled
Castro’s Cuba: A Classic ‘Asymmetric’ Threat
(No. 98-C 59, 3 April 1998).

6. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled
Clinton Legacy Watch # 23: Confession of a
Politicizer (No. 98-D 72, 28 April 1998).

7. For more on these asymmetric threats from Cuba, see the Casey
Institute’s Perspective entitled
Asymmetric Threat: Defector Confirms Moscow’s Lourdes Complex in Cuba
Compromised
Sensitive Gulf War Battle Plans (No. 98-C 64, 10
April 1998).

8. See Sen. Lott Shows How and Secures Means to
Topple Saddam (No. 98-D 73, 28 April
1998) and Father of a Free Iraq? Iraqi National Congress’ Chalabi Details a
Program for
Liberating His Country From Saddam (No. 98-P 39,
4 March 1998).