‘Will the real terrorist please stand up’ (+ Video)

As my old friend Saul Landau, who is no longer with us, asked in one of his documentaries: “Will the real terrorist please stand up?”

On Wednesday, April 30, the U.S. Department of State, again, issued their yearly report that keeps Cuba on the list of states that sponsor terrorism. A list they’ve been part of since 1982.

What follows is a transcript of the press conference where this was discussed. We also have video of the conference. The material is courtesy of the Department of State and its website. After you’ve read and watched, you then need to ask yourself what Cuba is doing on this list. Not even Dept. of State Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf had answers for reporters who insisted but were left with simple “Hmmmm…” and “MmHmmm” throughout the conference.

*****

Department of State report on Cuba:

“Cuba was designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982.

“Cuba has long provided safe haven to members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).  Reports continued to indicate that Cuba’s ties to ETA have become more distant, and that about eight of the two dozen ETA members in Cuba were relocated with the cooperation of the Spanish government.  Throughout 2013, the Government of Cuba supported and hosted negotiations between the FARC and the Government of Colombia aimed at brokering a peace agreement between the two.  The Government of Cuba has facilitated the travel of FARC representatives to Cuba to participate in these negotiations, in coordination with representatives of the Governments of Colombia, Venezuela, and Norway, as well as the Red Cross.

“There was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups.

“The Cuban government continued to harbor fugitives wanted in the United States. The Cuban government also provided support such as housing, food ration books, and medical care for these individuals.”

*****

So I ask you, the reader, does it make sense? I’ve read the report at least 10 times and I still can’t see it. And then I think of the following:

• Since 2004 when the U.S. began using drones, an estimated 286 to 890 civilians have been killed, including 168 to 197 children. Terrorism?
• Here’s a report issued by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism on drones: “Five years ago, on January 23 2009, a CIA drone flattened a house in Pakistan’s tribal regions. It was the third day of Barack Obama’s presidency, and this was the new commander-in-chief’s first covert drone strike. … Initial reports said up to ten militants were killed, including foreign fighters and possibly a ‘high-value target’ – a successful first hit for the fledgling administration. … But reports of civilian casualties began to emerge. As later reports revealed, the strike was far from a success. At least nine civilians died, most of them from one family. … There was one survivor, 14-year-old Fahim Qureshi, but with horrific injuries including shrapnel wounds in his stomach, a fractured skull and a lost eye, he was as much a victim as his dead relatives. Later that day, the CIA attacked again – and leveled another house. It proved another mistake, this time one that killed between five and ten people, all civilians.” Do these actions make the U.S. a terrorist state?
• In 2003 the U.S. invaded Iraq. The reason for war was that they possessed weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found. After-the-fact investigations proved that the WMD were a fabrication of the W Bush administration. Some even claim that the president and vice president Dick Cheney were aware of the lies. Still they invaded. Terrorism?

*****

What follows is an abridged copy (the sections where they discuss Cuba) of the State Department press conference held by Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf. You can also see video of the conference where Cuba comes up after minute 5:00 below.

I leave you with this information and allow you to judge for yourself. And one more time I’ll ask: Will the real terrorist please stand up? Or is its representative standing behind the podium?

Marie Harf

Deputy Spokesperson

Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 30, 2014

QUESTION: I still had another one on the report, if that’s okay.

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about Cuba —

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: — which was retained as a designated state sponsor of terrorism again this year. The report cites that it’s providing – long provided a safe haven for —

MS. HARF: Me and my terrorism book.

QUESTION: Sorry. ETA —

MS. HARF: I know all the answers are not in here. (Laughter.) But go ahead. Yes.

QUESTION: ETA and the FARC as well. But also – but given the fact that these two groups, the threat from them is diminishing, I mean, there are peace talks going on with the FARC at the moment. Whether they’re successful I don’t know, but – but it also states in the report there was no indication that the Cuban Government provided weapons or paramilitary training to any terrorist group.

So my question is: How much longer are you going to keep Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism?

MS. HARF: Well, it’s a good question that I know comes up a lot. The State Department has no current plans to remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. As you may or may not know, there’s not a routine process by which you re-evaluate the state sponsors like there are, for example, with our terrorist designations for terrorist groups. So you can’t get into the process any more behind the scenes, but at this point, again, no plans to remove them.

QUESTION: But it would seem if they’re not supporting terrorist groups with weapons or training, and they’re retained because of the haven that they reportedly give to ETA and FARC, it doesn’t really make much sense they’re still on the list.

MS. HARF: Again, I don’t have any more details in terms of the reasoning that goes into that. Again, there’s no regular process for re-evaluating this. If there’s a policy reason to do so based on the conditions on the ground, I know folks will. But at this point, no plans to remove them from the list.

QUESTION: Well, don’t you also want to explain again how this report is not the vehicle for changing the state sponsors designation?

MS. HARF: Correct. And that’s sort of what I was getting to, that this is a report about what happened in 2013, the state sponsors of terrorism are listed in it, but it’s not as if every year we look at those and re-evaluate them in some way based on the report. They’re just listed in there.

QUESTION: And that you can remove a country or add a country —

MS. HARF: Any time.

QUESTION: — at any time during the year.

MS. HARF: At any time, as we did, if people remember, in 2008 with North Korea.

QUESTION: And how did that go? (Laughter.)

[…]

MS. HARF: Yes, Elise.

QUESTION: Just one more going back to the idea of Cuba and the whole angle of not taking them off. I mean, I understand getting on the list clearly is about terrorist activity and safe haven for terrorism and state-sponsored support.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But it does seem that getting off the list is more of a political determination that has very little to do with terrorism than actually any lingering terrorist activity – any state-organized support for terrorism.

MS. HARF: Well, just so – as you said, as a matter of law, in order for a country to be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, the Secretary must determine the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, made after careful review of all available evidence. Obviously, there’s a process that goes into place when you put a country on this list.

In terms of Cuba, I don’t know if you heard what – my answer to Jo, that there are no plans at this point to remove Cuba from the State Sponsor of Terror List, and there is no regularized process for reviewing them. In other words, it’s not mandated by law that we review who’s on that list. If there’s a reason to, we will. We obviously don’t get into that process.

QUESTION: But why – why are there no plans and why is there no process for taking a country off a list? I mean, shouldn’t they only be on the list if they’re actively – or within the, I think it’s within six months or a year, something – have actively supported.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So what are – what is the reason that Cuba’s still on the list?

MS. HARF: I don’t have any additional information for you about why Cuba’s still on the list. We know why they were put on. That was obviously a public discussion at the time.

QUESTION: But do you still see them as a state sponsor of terrorism?

MS. HARF: We have no plans to take them off of the list.

QUESTION: But I – I’m sorry. I just need to press you on why.

MS. HARF: I’ll keep saying the same thing if you keep asking.

QUESTION: No, I understand.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: But – I understand. Why is there no process for getting – it seems that –

MS. HARF: Well, there’s a process. There’s just not one built in the law wherein, unlike the foreign terrorist organization designations, we are required to review it every five years.

QUESTION: So those —

MS. HARF: It’s just not a regular – it doesn’t mean they don’t get reviewed. It means there’s not a time limit —

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: — under which you do that.

QUESTION: So would you agree then that a review of a country’s status on the list is, given the fact that you don’t have a legal requirement, is more based on your political -MS. HARF: No.

QUESTION: No. So a country, even if they’ve not committed terrorism – and I’m not singling out Cuba, I’m saying any country that could be in the future or is on the list – there’s just – why don’t you have it – why don’t you periodically review to see if they still should be on?

MS. HARF: Well, we constantly look at who’s on and who’s not, and we monitor all these countries. But I just don’t have any updates for you on Cuba.

QUESTION: Well, can you take the question as to what the criteria is for triggering a review of whether a country is not and whether that’s a political determination?

MS. HARF: I’m happy to see if there’s something we can share. I just, quite frankly, Elise, don’t know the answer.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that answer.

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: I mean, given the fact that, for instance, you’ve been pressing for a long time now for the release of Alan Gross, how does it help bilateral ties, which are not that great anyway, to keep them on this designation when perhaps there’s no need for them to be there?

MS. HARF: I think Alan Gross is completely separate from anything in this report. He should be released immediately on humanitarian grounds – has nothing to do with this report, or their inclusion on the State Sponsor of Terror List.

QUESTION: But it does have to do with bilateral relations.

MS. HARF: We have – the conversations we have with Cuba, whether they’re on migration or postal service or Alan Gross or anything, is just separate from this designation.

[…]

MS. HARF: Okay. Matt, do you have anything else you want to start with or anyone else?

QUESTION: I do have a couple things.

MS. HARF: Okay. Let’s start.

QUESTION: Unfortunately, it’s about Cuba. (Laughter.) But it has nothing to do with the state sponsor designation. (Laughter.)

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: So we understand that USAID and the State Department have completed their review of the Cuba Twitter —

MS. HARF: Oh, okay.

QUESTION: Oh, you’re not aware of that?

MS. HARF: I’m not, but I’m happy to check.

QUESTION: Apparently the findings were sent to the Hill yesterday.

MS. HARF: Okay. I’m happy to check.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, so you don’t —

MS. HARF: I have no reason to doubt that that’s not true.

QUESTION: — have them. Do you have anything new on that?

MS. HARF: I don’t. I’m sorry, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: Let me see. Let me check in with USAID.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. HARF: They’ve obviously leading on this. And if there’s any update on that, we can send it around after the briefing.

QUESTION: Okay. And I – so okay. Thank you. But I also have an additional —

MS. HARF: Sorry about that.

QUESTION: — no, that’s all right – additional question, which is apparently part of the program was to identify Cuban cell phone users as either pro-revolution, i.e., pro-Castro —

MS. HARF: Which program are you referring to specifically?

QUESTION: The —

MS. HARF: ZunZuneo.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: Either pro-revolution, apolitical or anti-revolutionary, which I presume would mean pro-U.S.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: Which would seem to belie the – or belie is the wrong word – which would seem to suggest that, in fact, it was political in nature, not —

MS. HARF: I’m not aware of that allegation.

QUESTION: So that’s just – yeah, that’s something new.

MS. HARF: So let’s write these all down, and I’ll take them all.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I wasn’t aware of that allegation.

QUESTION: All right. Great. So anyway, if you could take them, that would be great.

MS. HARF: So I don’t know if it’s true or not. Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Yes.