Basic HTML Version
tering the first stages of thaw. Dur–
ing the past few months, scores of
U.S. politicians, journalists and
businessmen have returned home
from visits to Hava na, singing the
praises o f the "New Cuba" and ad–
vocating reconciliation. Even more
significant ly. both Presiden! Carter
and Cuban dictator F idel Castro
have begun ta lking publicly about
the possibility ofwarmer relations.
At issuc is the question of lifting
the trade embargo imposed by Pres–
iden! Kennedy in 1962. and restor–
ing diplomatic relations severed by
Presiden! Eisenhower in January
1961.
Economically, the United States
would have little to gain by such a
move. Cuba-an island nation of
only nine million people-could
never become a major market for
U.S. companies. On the other side
o f the ledger, Cuba has virtually
nothing the U.S. really needs. But
there are sti ll profits to be made in
the Cuba trade, and American busi–
nessmen are interested. Though
business transact ions with Cuba are
st ill forbidden, planeloads of early–
bird entrepreneurs have already de–
scended upon Havana to get the
jump on competitors by establishing
preliminary business contacts.
Cuba has potentially much more
to gain through reconciliation than
does the United States. The island
sorely needs the variety of goods
obtainable from the U.S.-including
trucks, cars, industrial equipment
and spare parts. Foodstuffs, such as
wheat and rice, are also needed.
On the sell ing end, access for Cu–
ban sugar to the U.S. market is of
primary concern to Havana. The
economy of the Soviet-subsidized is–
land has been wrecked by thc in–
coro peten ce of the Castro
government, and is currently labor–
ing under a huge burden of foreign
debt. The sale of sugar (and, of
course, Havana cigars) to the U.S.
would permit Cuba to build up re–
serves of badly needed hard cur–
re ncy. The prospect of increased
tourist dollars is alluring for the
same reason.
No quick diplomatic break–
through should be expected, bow–
ever. Critics ask what Castro has
done to merit warmer relations.
Though often minimized or over-
The
PLAIN TRUTH
June
1977
looked by the eager-beaver advo–
cates of rapprochement, the
obstacles to warmer relations a re
numerous. Among them: the thou–
sands of Cuban troops and "ad–
visers" operating against Western
interests throughout Africa and else–
where; Havana's systematic and
brutal repression of human rights
(there are more political prisoners in
Cuba than in all the other nations of
Latin America combined); and the
un resolved matter of sorne $1.8 bil–
lion in property belonging to U.S.
corporations which Castro seized
without compensation in the early
1960s.
As long as Castro continues to
cast himself in the role of " leader"
of the Third World-with all the for–
eign adventurism and anti-Ameri–
canism that entails-opponents of
warmer relations will have a strong
argument in their favor. Cuba n offi–
cials themselves admit rapproche–
ment may be long in coming–
possibly
years
away. Except for their
economic morass, the Cuban lead–
ership, basking
in
foreign political
and military successes, feels that the
"winds of change" throughout the
Caribbean and Latín America are
blowing in their favor. Any ties with
the U.S. wiiJ be of a limited nature
and geared solely
to
Cuba's inter–
ests. Washington will gai n very
little.
PLUTONIUM BAN–
AGOODIDEA
TURNING SOUR
The American government is step–
ping up etfor ts to hall the prolifera–
tion of nuclear material throughout
the world. I n the past severa !
months, the Carter Administration
has banned the use of plutonium in
the U.S. nuclear power industry and
brought diplomatic pressure on its
allies in Europe to take tough action
to safeguard nuclear power plants
from terrorist attacks. lt has also
voiced its disapproval of severa! nu–
clear technology deals made be–
tween European nations and Third
World countries.
Thus far, the etforts have met
with mixed success. Jn sorne quar–
ters, Mr. Carter's etforts have met
with a cool, if not downright hostile
reception. German and French
de1egates to an l nternational
Atomic Energy conference in Iran
have criticized the plutonium ban.
and the head of the agency, Swe–
den's Sigvard Eklund, even argued
that it threatened the nuclear non–
proliferation trea ty by doing some–
thing the treaty explicitly forbids:
limiting the free flow of nuclear
knowledge between countries.
On the o ther hand, American
news sources indicate that France,
Britain, West Germany, Japan,
Canada, and the Soviet Union have
secretly gone along with the U.S.
proposal not to expon any more nu–
clear reprocessing equipment.
In any case, the American anti–
nuclear initiatives have already
strained relations with its European
allies, West Germany in particular.
The Bonn government has been vis–
ibly irked by American criticism
over its agreement to supply Brazil
with eight nuclear power stations, a
uranium-enrichment plant and an
installation for reprocessing spent
nuclear fuel. Even though there are
legal safeguards to the agreement ,
American officials have argued that
both the enrichment plant and the
reprocessing facility could even–
tually be used to make nuclear
weapons. France, too, is going
ahead with a similar deal with Paki–
stan, again disregarding American
criticism.
Much of the European hostility to
the American antiproliferation ef–
forts centers around fear of depen–
dence on America's only- too-finite
supply of uranium. Unlike uranium,
plutonium can be used indefinitely
to fuel nuclear power plants. The
prospect of "breeding plutonium"
holds much auraction to economi–
cally strapped European countries
who are now dependent on impor–
ted oil or uranium.
The worldwide energy crisis has
underscored the importance of a
modero industrial country being as
nearly self-su fficient as possible.
Sorne Europeans have therefore
looked upon the American efforts as
a cynical attempt to produce an
OPEC-Iike dominance over the
world's nuclear power industry. As
the head of Brita in's atomic energy
authority, Sir John Hill, has pointed
5