Two Florida lawmakers protested USAID’s plans to cut its budget for democracy programs in Cuba from $20 million to $15 million.
Sen. Marco Rubio on Wednesday called it “a terrible precedent, a terrible idea” and urged the agency to reconsider.
The planned reduction is “way out of proportion…for a program of this small scale,” Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 24.
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah defended the cuts, saying:

…on Cuba, again, the goals there are support for civil society and democracy with some small humanitarian efforts. And we have worked closely with our partners. We believe the administration’s budget of $15 million reflects an appropriate investment that they have the capacity to implement.
We recognize and take some faith in the fact that GAO reviewed our approach to implementing this program and very strongly commented on the effective reforms we’ve put in place, to have a clear and compelling implementation strategy for this effort.

Shah says USAID’s partners “have the capacity to implement” $15 million in programs. One Capitol Hill source who is knowledgeable about USAID’s programs told me in 2011 that USAID sometimes has trouble spending all the money it is given for Cuba programs. He said:

If you’re sitting at AID at a desk and someone hands you $20 million and says, ‘All right, go spend it on Cuba and none of it can touch the government’ — $20 million in a year is a lot of money to spend that way.

Devising ways to spend the money became tougher after Cuban authorities arrested American development worker Alan Gross in December 2009. After his arrest, USAID stopped funding programs aimed at smuggling high-tech communications gear into Cuba, the source said, but that created a new problem. He said:

Now you’ve got to figure out—where do we spend all that money that we used to spend on technology? In some ways this is a shoveling-the-money-out-the-door operation.

Even when USAID spent only $9 million per year on Cuba programs, it was “very difficult” to find productive ways to spend the money, the source said.
The source it was especially difficult for USAID in 2008 when it suddenly had to spend some $45 million Cuba programs. He said:

According to everyone at the State Department, that was the year that the programs just…broke down completely. It’s very difficult to spent that much money, so how do you spend it? You basically give it to people in the United States and say, ‘OK, try to go do some good with it.’

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said more money is needed for democracy activists, not less. During an April 25 budget hearing, she told Shah:

I continue to be concerned over the administration’s attempts to cut much needed democracy programs to the Cuban people. Forty pro-democracy activists remain on hunger strikes in Cuba to call attention to the dozens of Cubans who are being detained by Castro’s state security forces. These brave heros are risking their lives yet we are cutting their support, which is not prudent, especially at a time when the crackdown by Castro’s thugs is actually on the rise on the island.

Rubio blamed Secretary of State John Kerry for the $5 million cut. He did not mention Kerry by name, but recalled that Kerry, as senator and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, once froze funding for democracy programs in Cuba.
Rubio said Kerry and other lawmakers “held up this program with endless questions about it.”
Kerry now oversees both the State Department and USAID and is in a position to adjust the budget for the democracy programs. Said Rubio:

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this was reduced. I just hope that this will be reversed. I think it’s a terrible precedent. It’s a terrible idea.

Critics of U.S. policy toward Cuba hope Kerry is taking a new approach toward Cuba. Arturo Lopez-Levy, a lecturer at the University of Denver, said Kerry’s experiences in “Vietnam, where visceral ideological attitudes prevailed over rational analysis, prompted the future senator to advocate for a more realistic course for U.S. policy.” Lopez-Levy wrote:

Once public opinion turned against the war in Vietnam, the political leadership in the U.S. found it had no choice but to follow suit. Kerry is better positioned than anyone to be a leader and see that point of departure when it comes to U.S. policy and Cuba.

Kerry has spoken out against U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. In 2009, he wrote:

For 47 years, our embargo in the name of democracy has produced no democracy at all. Too often, our rhetoric and policies have actually furnished the Castro regime with an all-purpose excuse to draw attention away from its many shortcomings.

As Lopez-Levy sees it, lifting sanctions – including the ban on unrestricted travel to the island – would be “a catalyst for change” in Cuba.

Supporters of sanctions say the embargo must remain in place to force the Cuban government to make democratic reforms.

A drawing from an Alan Gross memo

New details emerged in the case of Alan Gross in March. A statement filed in federal court showed that Gross:

• Reported his weight was 144, down 110 pounds from the 254 he says he weighed when he was jailed in December 2009.
• Continues to dispute the allegations against him and “the validity of my conviction.”
• Had spent the decade before his arrest working in information and communications technology, setting up and managing about 150 “fixed-earth stations to increase Internet access.”
• Bought satellite phones and SIM cards from private, commercial suppliers, not the U.S. government or military.
• Ordered phones and laptops from such retailers as Best Buy, Costco and Amazon.
• Pitched a Cuba project proposal to the Pan American Development Foundation. PADF rejected his idea and made a counter-proposal, which Gross turned down because he thought it was “imprudent.”
• Worked as a subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development, and was never given a U.S. government security clearance.
• Was proud that he had never sued anyone until this lawsuit.
• Didn’t know and wasn’t warned that his activities in Cuba were a crime.
• Didn’t fear for his safety or freedom.

Another document filed in court in March showed that Gross envisioned setting up satellite Internet connections for Cuban Jews in seven provinces, then expanding his operation to include as many as 30,000 Masons at more than 300 lodges across the country.
Gross wrote that Cuban Jews had “strategic value” in the project because of their religious, financial and humanitarian ties to the United States, according to the October 2008 document.
He told his employer, DAI, that Jewish synagogues were a “secure springboard through which information dissemination will be expanded.”

Incoming Secretary of State John Kerry vowed earlier this month to boost U.S. engagement abroad as a way to “prevent conflict and prevent failed states.” In a Feb. 15 speech to employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development, he said:

This challenge deserves more focus and more attention, not less. This is not a time for the United States of America to retrench and to retreat.
This is a time to be more engaged.

Kerry, the former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited the importance of transparency and accountability. He said he wanted to work with USAID personnel “in the smartest way we can together to get the best return on this investment for the American taxpayer that we can get.”
And he said foreign aid is a “paltry” 1 percent of the federal budget, a “tiny component of what we do overall compared to the military budget, compared to all of our budget.”
Earlier in February, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked then-nominee Kerry questions about Cuba, democracy programs and jailed American Alan Gross. Kerry’s answers fell in line with the Obama administration’s approach toward Cuba and did not indicate he planned any changes in policy. Kerry told Rubio:

If confirmed, I will continue U.S. policies that promote democracy, freedom of expression and assembly, and human rights in Cuba. It is the Administration’s view that we should help those who work for positive change in Cuba, including human rights and pro-democracy activists, independent journalists, and broader civil society. The Cuban democracy programs are one element of the strategy to support these objectives. If confirmed, I will seek ways to increase the independence of the Cuban people so that they may freely determine their own future.

If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to protect the safety and security of American citizens around the globe, including in Cuba. Alan Gross is a 63-year-old husband, father, and dedicated professional with a long history of providing assistance and support to under-served communities in over 50 countries. His incarceration is unjust and his release is a humanitarian issue. If confirmed, I will continue to use all appropriate diplomatic means to secure Mr. Gross’ release.

Also in February, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, applauded USAID for progress it has made toward tighter internal financial controls.
USAID hired an outside contractor to review its programs and found “questionable charges and weaknesses in partners’ financial management, procurement standards, and internal controls,” GAO said in a 58-page report.
GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, criticized the State Department for weak financial oversight of its Cuba programs. It said the State Department had failed to properly review the internal accounting practices of two-thirds of its contractors for Cuba work from Oct. 1, 2009, through Sept. 30, 2012.
The report did not say what happened, if anything, to the contractors who submitted questionable expenses. Nor did it give any details about those charges, unlike a 2006 GAO report that criticized contractors for using democracy funds to buy Nintendo Game Boys, leather coats, a mountain bike, crab meat, cashmere sweaters and Godiva chocolates.
José Cardenas, a former acting assistant administrator for Latin America at USAID, told El Nuevo Herald that the GAO report showed that USAID has made progress. He said:

In the old days, when it was a smaller program, it was run … without many controls and a lot of faith in the grantees. But this report demonstrates that the controls have caught up to the implementation.

On Feb. 12, an anonymous commenter going by the name Cantaclaro posed these questions to Cardenas on Phil Peters’ The Cuban Triangle blog:

1. Why was Mr. Gross asked to position the BGANS necessary for such a network in territory under the jurisdiction of the Cuban government instead of in sites in Havana protected by diplomatic immunity?
2. Couldn’t the BGANS installed in sites under diplomatic immunity have allowed the mesh network to function just as well as those that could be placed in territory under Cuban government jurisdiction without incurring in the unnecessary risk of having those that operated and installed them being arrested and the equipment in question being seized by the Cuban security services?
3. Why couldn’t the equipment in question have been brought into the country through the diplomatic mail instead of running the risk of having Gross or innocent ignorant Jewish tourists smuggle it in under the vigilant eyes of the Cuban custom inspectors?
4. Why was the installation and maintenance of such equipment not entrusted to technicians employed in foreign embassies and consulates and enjoying diplomatic immunity instead of being outsourced to a Jewish American technician who would have to enter the country on numerous occasions for such purposes and who, for this reason, would necessarily draw the attention and be placed under the observation of the Cuban security services?
5. In your opinion, didn’t the manner that the project to install mesh networks in Cuba was designed and implemented expose Mr. Alan Gross to risks that were totally unnecessary and that could have easily been avoided?
6. Why was Mr. Gross sent to Cuba on five different occasions?
7. Didn’t his frequent visits to the island probably increase the surveillance that the Cuban security services placed on him and the risks that he faced?
8. What was the reason that such unnecessary risks were assumed?
9. Was Mr. Gross’ project designed and implemented in this fashion out of sheer ineptitude or in an intentional manner with the express purpose of getting Mr. Gross arrested to prevent further negotiations for the betterment of relations between the Cuban and the US government and to drive a wedge between the Cuban government and progressive Jewish groups in the US that favored the amelioration or ending of the embargo?
10. Either way do you feel that you and the other persons who decided on the design and implementation and supervision of this project acted in an honest, intelligent and apt manner?
11. Did you have any hidden intentions in proceeding in the manner you selected?
12. Did you and the other officials responsible for this project foresee the possible end results of this project if, due to the excessive risk involved, Mr. Gross was apprehended?
13. Were you aware that if apprehended, Mr. Gross could be used as a bargaining chip for the release of the five Cuban Agents arrested in the US?
14. Did you foresee that as a result of such an arrest the implantation of a mesh network in Cuba would be at the very least be retarded and could possibly be even prevented if this is one of the negotiated conditions for Gross’ release?
15. Did you foresee that the lack of a mesh network in the country would slow down its democratic transition and would seriously hinder obtaining further positive results in the US Democracy Program for Cuba?
16. Whether the arrest of Mr. Gross was result of gross ineptitude or of a provocation, do you believe that the US government has a moral responsibility to negotiate his release because this project subjected him to a totally unnecessary degree of personal risk?
17. Should the US government refuse to negotiate a solution for his release or should it seek for an acceptable and honorable negotiated solution to free him?
18. What possible solutions would you suggest be explored for this purpose?
19. Who were the other persons involved in the design, implementation and supervision of Mr. Gross’ project?
20. What degree of personal responsibility do you and the other persons involved in this project have and should each of them be sanctioned by the US government in some manner for their part in it?
21. Do you believe that Alan Gross’ family should be allowed to sue the US government institutions and /or the contractors or subcontractors and/or the officials in all these entities that were involved in a project that submitted him to excessive risks that were totally unnecessary?

Also in February, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and other lawmakers traveled to Cuba and met with Gross. After returning to the U.S., Leahy told CNN that both the U.S. and Cuba must compromise if Gross is to be released. He said:

There are ways to get him released, but this will require some give and take on both sides, and peaceful negotiations.

On Feb. 28, Mark Feierstein, assistant administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that USAID would continue trying to help Cubans exercise basic human rights, including freedom of expression. He said:

Today in Cuba, the government not only imprisons Cubans who try to exercise their internationally recognized rights; it targets foreigners as well. Alan Gross, a U.S. citizen and resident of Maryland, has languished in a Cuban jail for more than three years for helping a small community of Jews on the island to access the internet. As nearly every country in the world races to take advantage of technology to benefit its citizens, the Government of Cuba erects barriers to progress. But those barriers cannot stand.

Cuba analyst Arturo Lopez-Levy disputed the idea that Gross was “kidnapped.” He wrote:

Alan Gross was arrested in Cuba, not kidnapped. When Secretary Clinton says: “Mr.Gross was not a spy. Mr. Gross worked for a development group that was helping Cubans,” she is hiding part of truth. Mr. Gross was not an intelligence agent but he worked for a contract of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under Section 109 of the Helms-Burton Act. This law has been condemned by the UN for violating Cuba’s sovereignty. He is not a hostage but a victim of our policy of regime change. If Washington agreed to negotiate his freedom with Cuba, such action would not create any risk of abduction of other Americans. Cuba does not kidnap American tourists, like Hamas and Hezbollah do with Israeli citizens in order to trigger new negotiations.

The Obama administration publicly repeating that the only way to solve the Gross case is for Cuba to “unconditionally” release him has surrendered the political initiative to the Cuban right. These hard-line exiles, to whom President Obama owes nothing (they tried to prevent his reelection by presenting Obama as a socialist, associated with Hugo Chavez and Mariela Castro), still do not accept their own responsibility for Gross’ tragedy. Gross’ arrest was not a surprise in the history of Washington’s conflicts with Cuba’s sovereignty, caused largely by of some exile groups’ insistence on maintaining the U.S. embargo against Cuba and imposing regime change from the outside.