Editorials
Monday, March 23, 1998TWO years ago, after Cuba shot down two American planes, killing four Cuban Americans who were involved in rescuing refugees from the Castro regime, the United States tightened sanctions against Havana. Now the Clinton administration is easing those sanctions, restoring direct humanitarian charter flights and permitting Cuban Americans to send up to $300 per quarter-year to relatives in Cuba. Lifting some sanctions
against Castro’s CubaThese are modest steps. The direct flights were requested by Catholic relief organizations, which say their shipping costs tripled after direct U.S. shipments to Cuba were suspended in 1996. Since President Clinton stopped charter flights, Cuban Americans have had to go to Mexico or Canada to fly into Cuba.
The approval of financial remittances to relatives is intended weaken Havana's ability to skim profits from illegal trade.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Pope John Paul II's visit to Cuba this year has "opened up new opportunities" on the island. "The time has come to move on, and look to a new era in Cuba," she said. However, the 38-year-old economic sanctions on Cuba aren't affected by the executive order.
Despite protests from Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and two Cuban-born Republican members of Congress from Florida, these steps are sensible. The sanctions that were lifted did nothing to promote the cause of democracy in Cuba.
But Albright's remarks about moving on ought to be given a wider meaning. The trade embargo against Cuba should be lifted, at least in part, while continuing to press Castro to restore human rights.
The Cold War is over. Cuba is no longer a threat of any kind to the U.S. now that its sponsor, the Soviet Union, has disappeared. Fidel Castro still runs a repressive dictatorship, but his violations of human rights are no more egregious than those of China, which has become one of our biggest trading partners. Our allies trade with Cuba, seeing no point in the embargo.
The main reason to continue the sanctions seems to be to win the votes of Cuban American voters in Florida, who passionately oppose any easing of restrictions until Castro is overthrown. But there must be more to foreign policy than domestic politics. Even if the anti-Castro lobby refuses to recognize that conditions have changed, Washington should.
BILL Clinton has begun the first visit to sub-Saharan Africa by a U.S. president since Jimmy Carter went to Nigeria and Liberia in 1978. Clinton will visit six countries -- Ghana, Uganda, Rwanda, South Africa, Botswana and Senegal. Clinton in Africa
The 12-day trip suggests a heightened interest in the continent. In his first term Clinton cut aid to Africa and pulled U.S. troops out of Somalia after a decision to expand their mission backfired. Now the administration apparently hopes to demonstrate a change of attitude -- but without becoming directly involved as in Somalia.
The countries the president is visiting were selected for their respect for human rights, democratic governments and economic liberalization. Except for South Africa, none of Africa's larger countries qualified, leaving small- and medium-sized nations to choose from.
Such exclusions are possible because Africa simply is not that important to American interests -- there are no countries comparable in importance to Japan or Russia, for example. No oil-producing countries are on the itinerary because their repressive policies are considered unacceptable.
One of the countries selected, Botswana, is Hawaii's antipode -- the place directly opposite Hawaii on the globe -- and was visited by then-Gov. John Burns in 1966.
The trip should be welcome to African Americans, who have their roots in the continent and have seen scant attention given to Africa in the past. In addition, the trip should bring Africa into focus for Americans of all races.
This also can be seen as an attempt to show Africans that the United States takes a sympathetic interest in their problems, without promising to solve them. The world's only superpower and leading democracy should do no less.
JAPAN'S financial system has been rocked by a series of scandals. The appointment of a new governor of the Bank of Japan, the nation's central bank, could help to restore much-needed confidence in the bank itself, damaged by the arrest of an official on bribery charges, and perhaps other financial institutions. Japanese banking
The new governor is Masaru Hayami, a business executive and one-time central bank official. Hayami, 72, launched his governorship by declaring in his first news conference that the BOJ should be the "conscience" of the Japanese economy.
Recently a senior Bank of Japan official was arrested on suspicion that he leaked sensitive market information to banks in exchange for lavish entertainment and golfing trips. That sort of abuse appears to have been common, but can no longer be tolerated in Japan's difficult economic situation.
Hayami took over shortly before a sweeping overhaul goes into effect, aimed at increasing the central bank's independence from the government and making it more accountable to parliament. The law was amended to require fuller disclosure of policy meetings and more regular reporting to lawmakers.
The Hayami team will ostensibly have a freer rein from the powerful Ministry of Finance in setting Japan's monetary policy, long the main lever for propping up the economy.
But the world is still waiting to see whether Japan will carry through with the reforms needed to clean up its financial system and lead the economy -- and other Asian countries -- out of their current slough.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
