Chris Van Hollen vs. Marco Rubio on Cuba

The brief exchange between Senator Chris Van Hollen and Marco Rubio this Tuesday reveals the irrationality that this administration embodies. Van Hollen took him through several tense points, but the one that interests me, given my immediate circumstances, is the Cuban one. Van Hollen asked Rubio if he had new evidence to argue that Cuba is —and note the present-tense conjugation, because it’s key— a state sponsor of terrorism. Rubio’s response was total nonsense that does not withstand the simplest analysis. Some context next.

In its final hours, a Biden administration that introduced no new policies against Cuba but strictly applied most of those inherited from the first Trump administration—and in this sense was no less cruel— decreed the Island’s removal from the SSOT list. On the first day back in office—and without Biden’s decree having had any practical effect—Trump reinstated Havana on it, offering absolutely no argument in defense of the rollback. Van Hollen questioned Rubio on this very point, that is, on what basis the Trump administration claims that this country sponsors international terrorism.

The Secretary of State starts spinning in circles, doing pirouettes, talking about the FARC-EP, the National Liberation Army (ELN in Spanish), about us being the mother lode of all Marxist and leftist organizations... In short, the thing is that "at some point", Cuba has been connected to these developments. I am not going to dispute the real history of Cuba regarding support for guerrilla movements, but the last thing known about Cuba and the FARC-EP was that they signed a peace deal here with the Colombian government. The ELN was on the same path when, during the government of Iván Duque, an irresponsible, mortal attack was carried out by factions of the guerrilla group in Colombia, with no connection in the decision-making chain of command to those who were in Havana, which shattered any chance for peace.

Duque demanded the surrender of the ELN delegation members, and the Cuban government stood by its commitment as a guarantor and refrained from doing so. Perhaps Mike Pompeo was going to invent something to put us back on the list. But the truth is this: that irresponsibility—quite ungrateful towards Cuba—on the part of the ELN was the main justification. Nothing more on that point. Miraculously, Rubio made no mention of ETA, or of the Americans presumed guilty of crimes in the United States—from the time of greatest ferment of movements like the Black Panthers—who ended up taking refuge in Cuba as part of a very particular historical context. I emphasize the historical side of this debate because when Van Hollen insists and asks Rubio, "What’s new?", his response leaves Van Hollen evidently stunned and disconcerted: "Why do I have to look for new evidence?" Tell me something.

Watch the brief exchange here. Source for the cover image.