Ending an Embargo

In 1961, Cuba's Premier Fidel Castro roundly denounced the Organization of American States as "the whorehouse of imperialism." His acerbic judgment was presumably reinforced by the diplomatic and trade quarantine imposed on Cuba by the OAS three years later. Now, though, Castro may well be in a mind to revise his opinion. Last week OAS members-- notably Peru, Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia--were lobbying for an end to the economic and political isolation of Cuba. When the foreign ministers of the organization meet in Quito this week, it is virtually certain that the required two-thirds majority of the 23 voting members will agree to drop the sanctions.

Opinion within the OAS has been shifting in Castro's favor over the past several years (TIME, Sept. 2). The pivotal difference at the Quito conference is the attitude of the U.S., which will conspicuously decline to lobby in favor of continued sanctions. The American policy shift was foreshadowed in a recent report by the independent but influential Commission on U.S.-Latin American Relations, headed by Sol Linowitz, former Xerox board chairman and Ambassador to the OAS under Lyndon Johnson. The commission's study firmly recommends an end to Cuba's isolation. It acknowledges that the Soviet use of the island as a strategic base is a legitimate U.S. concern, but argues that this is primarily a matter of U.S.-Soviet, not U.S.-Cuban relations. Continuing the OAS sanctions against Cuba "makes it easier for the Cuban government to justify and prolong its tight control of the intellectual and political activities of the Cuban people."

The commission's report is equally trenchant on other Latin American matters. It contends that U.S. insistence on perpetual control of the Panama Canal jeopardizes its interests more than it protects them. It also urges formulation of foreign investment codes that would at once protect underdeveloped countries from exploitation and shield investors from arbitrary expropriation. In matters involving the OAS, the study recommends that "the U.S. should be guided primarily by Latin American initiatives," which is precisely the role that the U.S. will be playing in Quito.

Reports from such blue-ribbon committees are often duly noted by U.S. Administrations, then quickly forgotten. (Such was the fate of a 1969 Rockefeller Report on Latin America that criticized U.S. interference in the affairs of Latin American nations.) This time there is good reason to believe that Washington is paying attention; William D. Rogers, a Kennedy Democrat who helped draw up the study, is now Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs and will be a leading member of the U.S. delegation to Quito. Rogers has said that he would like to see a normalization of relations with Cuba, including eventual U.S. recognition.

Bomb Blasts. At least two nations oppose the lifting of sanctions. Chile has complained that Cuba flew arms to the late Marxist President Salvador Allende before he was overthrown. Uruguay insists that Castro still underwrites the Tupamaro guerrilla movement. Bolivia, whose military government last week put down an army revolt, and Paraguay may also vote no on the grounds that they are subject to Castroite subversion. Almost as if to underscore such claims, bomb blasts rocked both the Bolivian embassy and the Brazilian Cultural Institute in Quito before the conference.

Brazil, which is ideologically sympathetic to the Chilean and Uruguayan military-backed governments, nevertheless sees that there is no point in trying to block Cuba without U.S. help. Moreover, two of Castro's outspoken advocates in the OAS are looking more and more formidable. They are Mexico, with newly discovered oil reserves, and petroleum-rich Venezuela, which introduced the 1964 quarantine proposal but is now backing the movement to end it.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.