Text
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON
September 20, 1995
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am deeply concerned about H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity AcJ:.., which the House is scheduled to
consider this week.
The·Department of State believes that in
its current form this legislation would damage prospects for a
peaceful transition in Cuba and jeopardize a number of key U.S.
interests around the world.
For these reasons, I would
recommend that the President veto the bill if passed by the
Congress in its current form.
As you know, we share with the sponsors of the bill the
goal of promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba.
We have pursued that goal by maintaining a tough, comprehensi~e
economic embargo against the Cuban government while reaching
out to the Cuban people through licensing private humanitarian
aid and improved telecommunications.
This policy, guided bi'
the Cuban Democracy Act, has helped to force the limited but
positive economic changes that are taking place in Cuba.
We believe that H.R. 927 would actually damage prospects
for a peaceful transition.
We have consistently objected to
the overl:i rigid list of more than a dozen "requirements" for
determining when a transition or a democratic government is in
power.
These infle:{ible standards for responding to what may
be a rapidly evolving situation could leave the United States
on the sidelines during a transition. Moreover, by failing to
provide clear authority to assist even a transition or
democratic government that meets the bill's certification
requirements, the legislation fails to signal to the Cuban
people that the United States is prepared to assist them once
the inevitable transition to democracy in Cuba begins.
In addition to damaging prospects for a rapid, peaceful
transition to democracy, H.R. 927 would jeopardize other key
U.S. interests arou,nd the globe.
For e:-cample, it would
interfere with U.S. assistance to Russia and other nations of
the former Soviet Union.
Other provisions would condition
assistance to any country if it -- or even a private entity in.
its territory -- participates in the completion of a nuclear
power plant in Cuba.
This kind of rigid conditioning of
The Honorable
Newt Gingrich, Speaker,
House of Representatives.
assistance can have far-reaching consequences and may interfere
with our ability to advance the natio~al ~ncerest.
While we are firmly committed to seeking the resolution of
U.S. property claims by a future Cuban government, the right
created by the bill to sue in U.S. courts persons who buy or
invest in expropriated U.S. properties in Cuba ("traffickers")
is a misguided attempt to address this problem.
Encumbering
property in Cuba with litigation in U.S. court~ is likely to
impede our own efforts to negotiate a successful resolution of
U.S.-citizen claims against Cuba and could hamper economic
reform efforts by a transitional gover~ment in Cuba.
U.S.
citizens and corporations with certified claims have publicli'
opposed these provisions.
In addition, these provisions would
create tensions in our relations with our allies who do not
agree with the premises underlying such a cause of action.
This stance would be hard to defend under international law.
Furthermore, we know that this provision is already being used
by the Castro regime to play on the fears of ordinary citizens
that their homes and work places would be seized by
Cuban-Americans if the regime were to fall.
Title III will also ultimately prove harmful to U.S.
business.
First, it sets a precedent that, if followed by
other countries, would increase litigation risks for U.S.
companies abroad.
Second, it will create a barrier to
participation by U.S. businesses in the Cuban market once the
transition to democracy begins.
Because the lawsuits
contemplated by the bill may be brought against the United
States as well as foreign companies and are not terminat8d
until the rigid requirements for a democratic Cuban government
are satisfied, the bill erects an enormous legal hurdle to
participation by U.S. businesses in the rebuilding ~fa free
and independent Cuba.
Finally, the provisions of the bill that would deny visas
to "traffickers" in expropriated property, which are global in
scope and not limited to Cuba, will create enormous frictions
with our allies and be both burdensome and difficult to
administer.
In sum, the Department of State believes that while the
goals of H.R. 927 are laudable, its s~ecific provisions are
objectionable and in some cases contrary to broader U.S.
interests, even to the goal of establishing democracy and a
free market in that country with active U.S. involvement.
Given these considerations, the Department cf State can not
support the bill and, if it were presented to the President,
would urge a veto.
Sincerely,
Warren Christopher
WASHINGTON
September 20, 1995
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am deeply concerned about H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity AcJ:.., which the House is scheduled to
consider this week.
The·Department of State believes that in
its current form this legislation would damage prospects for a
peaceful transition in Cuba and jeopardize a number of key U.S.
interests around the world.
For these reasons, I would
recommend that the President veto the bill if passed by the
Congress in its current form.
As you know, we share with the sponsors of the bill the
goal of promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba.
We have pursued that goal by maintaining a tough, comprehensi~e
economic embargo against the Cuban government while reaching
out to the Cuban people through licensing private humanitarian
aid and improved telecommunications.
This policy, guided bi'
the Cuban Democracy Act, has helped to force the limited but
positive economic changes that are taking place in Cuba.
We believe that H.R. 927 would actually damage prospects
for a peaceful transition.
We have consistently objected to
the overl:i rigid list of more than a dozen "requirements" for
determining when a transition or a democratic government is in
power.
These infle:{ible standards for responding to what may
be a rapidly evolving situation could leave the United States
on the sidelines during a transition. Moreover, by failing to
provide clear authority to assist even a transition or
democratic government that meets the bill's certification
requirements, the legislation fails to signal to the Cuban
people that the United States is prepared to assist them once
the inevitable transition to democracy in Cuba begins.
In addition to damaging prospects for a rapid, peaceful
transition to democracy, H.R. 927 would jeopardize other key
U.S. interests arou,nd the globe.
For e:-cample, it would
interfere with U.S. assistance to Russia and other nations of
the former Soviet Union.
Other provisions would condition
assistance to any country if it -- or even a private entity in.
its territory -- participates in the completion of a nuclear
power plant in Cuba.
This kind of rigid conditioning of
The Honorable
Newt Gingrich, Speaker,
House of Representatives.
assistance can have far-reaching consequences and may interfere
with our ability to advance the natio~al ~ncerest.
While we are firmly committed to seeking the resolution of
U.S. property claims by a future Cuban government, the right
created by the bill to sue in U.S. courts persons who buy or
invest in expropriated U.S. properties in Cuba ("traffickers")
is a misguided attempt to address this problem.
Encumbering
property in Cuba with litigation in U.S. court~ is likely to
impede our own efforts to negotiate a successful resolution of
U.S.-citizen claims against Cuba and could hamper economic
reform efforts by a transitional gover~ment in Cuba.
U.S.
citizens and corporations with certified claims have publicli'
opposed these provisions.
In addition, these provisions would
create tensions in our relations with our allies who do not
agree with the premises underlying such a cause of action.
This stance would be hard to defend under international law.
Furthermore, we know that this provision is already being used
by the Castro regime to play on the fears of ordinary citizens
that their homes and work places would be seized by
Cuban-Americans if the regime were to fall.
Title III will also ultimately prove harmful to U.S.
business.
First, it sets a precedent that, if followed by
other countries, would increase litigation risks for U.S.
companies abroad.
Second, it will create a barrier to
participation by U.S. businesses in the Cuban market once the
transition to democracy begins.
Because the lawsuits
contemplated by the bill may be brought against the United
States as well as foreign companies and are not terminat8d
until the rigid requirements for a democratic Cuban government
are satisfied, the bill erects an enormous legal hurdle to
participation by U.S. businesses in the rebuilding ~fa free
and independent Cuba.
Finally, the provisions of the bill that would deny visas
to "traffickers" in expropriated property, which are global in
scope and not limited to Cuba, will create enormous frictions
with our allies and be both burdensome and difficult to
administer.
In sum, the Department of State believes that while the
goals of H.R. 927 are laudable, its s~ecific provisions are
objectionable and in some cases contrary to broader U.S.
interests, even to the goal of establishing democracy and a
free market in that country with active U.S. involvement.
Given these considerations, the Department cf State can not
support the bill and, if it were presented to the President,
would urge a veto.
Sincerely,
Warren Christopher