The next time you see a column or analysis by former Castro regime bureaucrat Arturo Lopez-Levy or former U.S official Lawrence Wilkerson, read this one beforehand so you can be fully aware of their mindset and where they're coming from.

My thoughts on their post are shown (in italics) below.

A Road Map to Solve the Alan Gross Case

Should be entitled "Fidel's Ideal Road Map to Solve the Alan Gross Case".

The trial in Cuba against USAID subcontractor Alan Gross, which will begin on March 4, presents an opportunity for the Cuban government to both demonstrate the legitimate basis for nationalist defense against U.S. interventionist policy and its good will towards the millions of potential American travelers to Cuba.

By the end of the trial, it should be clear that U.S. travelers to Cuba have nothing to fear if they keep a healthy distance from regime change programs and that Washington and Havana would both gain from dismantling hostile attitudes. Note they don't say "US government" sponsored regime change programs.

Should visitors stay away from all regime change programs or, put differently, all programs that challenge the regime even if run by private individuals and organizations? And what counts as a regime change program? Isn't this contradictory to the whole discourse of anti-sanctions advocates that tourism will bring regime change

The trial serves three Cuban government purposes:

(1) It will mobilize the nationalist sentiments of the Cuban people to denounce foreign interference in Cuba's internal affairs. The trial must clarify whether Gross informed the leaders of the Jewish community in Cuba of his link to the USAID Cuba program sponsored under the auspices of the Helms-Burton Act. If not, this will expose a design flaw of a semi-covert subversive program in which the USAID placed Cubans at risk of long prison sentences without their informed consent, thus violating basic standards of international development assistance. By now it is evident that the Bush Administration, which conceived the project, was not interested in promoting Cuban civil society, but rather in using religious solidarity as a political weapon.

Given what we hear from the Middle East, Cubans might actually welcome foreign interference to help end a cruel and bankrupt dictatorship. Also, the program cannot be "semi-covert" when the authors provide a web link to the actual program! Some Cubans on the island may not have known about it, but only because the regime censors the internet.

(2) It will set an example and deter other Cubans, Americans, and nationals of third countries from participating in regime change programs under the Helms-Burton Act. No one after Alan Gross will be able to claim ignorance of the risk involved. Everything related to section 109 of the Helms Burton Act carries the stigma of illegal interference in Cuba's sovereign affairs and is punishable in Cuba by up to 20 years imprisonment.

Isn't Section 109 a per se an exception to the embargo? Therefore, Gross was not operating under Section 109, he was operating under a normal program not prohibited by the embargo.  Family visits, academic, cultural and religious travel are all permitted under the Helms-Burton Act. So by the author's logic all these people ought to be arrested.

(3) It will generate international condemnation of US policy and invigorate solidarity with Cuban sovereignty. By exposing the unilateralist, covert and interventionist nature of the USAID Cuba program, the trial will mobilize international opinion, not only triggering a more vigorous rejection of the U.S. embargo, but also tarnishing the credibility of the USAID in other countries. It is a blow, intangible but significant, to President Obama's foreign policy that focuses on the use of US popular appeal and bridge building. To the extent that the impact in countries such as Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and even El Salvador and Argentina, for example, will be greater, the State Department and the U.S. Congress cannot ignore the costs of disguising a Cuba regime change policy as international development assistance.

1. What we were previously told was a semi-covert program now becomes a covert program, despite the author's provided link to the "covert" program's web page on, lets remind ourselves, the World Wide Web. It's there, for all the world to see.

2. Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Iran do not count as international opinion. Most other countries will not buy into Cuban propaganda.

3. The authors obviously do not understand the very basics of "development".

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson's hope that Gross be tried and sent home is reasonable. Alan Gross is a victim of the hostility between the two countries and a policy that is not typical of American values and standards. His and his family's ordeal has attracted considerable humanitarian solidarity. As the first US citizen arrested under the law to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cuba, Gross should be given the benefit of the doubt and become an example of Cuba's goodwill towards the people of the United States.

Gross doesn't need to be given the benefit of the doubt. He is innocent, period.

If the Obama administration offers to facilitate a favorable international climate for the economic reforms taking place in Cuba, the utility of retaining Alan Gross, once the trial has concluded, would decline for the Cuban government.

Bad timing pal, those reforms just got postponed for five years, according to Raul.  Are they suggesting that it should be US policy to pay ransom for hostages? Are they aware of the risk this would create for all other US travelers to Cuba and elsewhere under this policy? This is worse than 185 Helms Burton laws strung together, one for every country. Hell, Somali pirates will soon start asking for a "favorable international climate".

Once the dividends related to the denouncement of the policy outlined in the Helms-Burton Act are obtained, the only benefit for the Cuban government in keeping Gross in prison would be the frequent mention of his case in relation to the situation of the five Cubans who were sentenced in Miami on charges of espionage in trials considered by Amnesty International and the UN group on arbitrary detention as lacking guarantees of fairness and impartiality. Although the cases must be analyzed separately, it is worth noting that the lawyer representing Gross at trial also serves as legal counselor for the families of the five.

Are the authors claiming that there is no Rule of Law in the US? It is Cuba that trails at the bottom of every freedom index in the world, not the US.

In these circumstances a visit to Havana by the two highest ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar would be very helpful. Such a visit could be preceded by a delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Through interacting with the Cuban office of religious affairs and the leadership of the Cuban Jewish community, they would learn firsthand how their brothers in faith reject the Helms-Burton Act and any misuse of inter-religious contacts as a political weapon for regime change.

Journalists could accompany the entourage and report on the island's welcoming attitude toward US travelers. The visiting US delegation could meet the relatives of the five Cubans imprisoned in the U.S., hearing their views on that trial and becoming aware of the need for political courage on both sides of the Florida Straits to end the policies that led to the arrests of the Cubans and of Gross.

What the authors propose, essentially, is that the two highest ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, religious leaders, and US media all clap liked trained seals to the tune of Cuba's propaganda machine. Perhaps they will also have to balance a red ball on their nose.

A Cuban humanitarian gesture towards the Gross family would add impetus to the advocates of a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba and recognize those many Americans who oppose the embargo. It might also create momentum for a substantial American gesture of détente, before the 2012 electoral season (for instance, removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, eliminating embargo elements that hinder Cuba's emerging private sector, or allowing food sales on credit).

The seals should clap, balance a red ball on their nose, and bring forth presents.....

The personal tragedy of Alan Gross, a U.S. citizen with an interest in international development assistance, has revealed once again the danger of allowing the values of US society to be hijacked by agendas unrelated to human rights and outside American strategic interests. The U.S. has no reason to apologize for its democratic values but the promotion of these principles should not be used to mask Cuban exiles' property claims, regime change aspirations or unilateral actions against the principles of international law.

Is the death of a hunger striker not a human rights issue? Is the denial of travel to thousands of Cubans not human rights? Either the authors aren't aware what human rights are, or they think of ordinary Cubans as no better than trained seals too.

Cuba, meanwhile, should not confuse enemies. Those who passed the Helms-Burton Act are precisely the ones who want to turn Alan Gross into an insurmountable obstacle for the advancement of better relations.

The Gross trial must expose the illegal, unilateralist and interventionist nature of the Helms-Burton Act and the USAID Cuba program. But after the trial, a humanitarian gesture towards Alan Gross and his family would be the best way to show the Cuban openness necessary to undermine the ban on travel to the island.

Argh!!!!!