THE NEW YORK TIMES

NEW YORY, January 10, 1997

A FROZEN APPROACH TO CUBA

Now that the campaign season is over, Washington has a chance to

put its Cuba policy on a same course that might encourage democratic

reform on the island. But neither Congress nor President Clinton seems inclined to try anything more creative than the isolation strategy that over nearly four decades has failed to budge Fidel Castro from his autocratic ways.

If anything, American policy has regressed in the last year, propelled

by Cuba's unprovoked attack on two civilian planes over international waters last February. The incident led Mr. Clinton, already concerned about offending Cuban-American voters in Florida and New Jersey, to

sign the ill-conceived Helms-Burton law that left Washington almost no flexibility in its handling of Mr. Castro.

Mr. Clinton has neutralized one of the most impractical parts of

the law, twice waiving a provision that invites lawsuits against

any company using Cuban property that once belonged to people who

are now citizens of the United States, including the many Cubans

who have migrated to this country since Fidel Castro's 1959

revolution.

Numerous countries have forbidden their companies to pay any claims

under this provision, and its enforcement would guarantee bitter

conflict with America's closest allies. The President's use of his

waiver power under the law, most recently invoked last week, was appropriate and commendable, but other rigid restrictions remain

intact. Beside trespassing on the sovereignty of other countries,

the law undermines Washington's ability to encourage democratic

reforms. It does so by taking away the President's authority to

loosen or tighten the United States' economy embargo of Cuba in

response to policy changes by Havana.

What hope now exists for expanding liberty in Cuba and preparing

the transition to a post-Castro era lies in the constructive use

of international economic and commercial leverage, not in trying

to bludgeon the rest of the world into joining America's lonely

and counterproductive economic embargo. Countries and companies

should tie their willingness to expand trade and investment with

Cuba to signs of progress on human and political rights.

That is just the approach America's European allies have now begun

to take. President Clinton cited Europe's explicit new commitments

to link further expansion of its economic and political ties to

expanded freedom on the island as justification for again suspending

the Helms-Burton penalties. Ideally, America should be following the

same sensible approach. It cannot under the Helms-Burton law.

The Administration suggests that Europe's new linkage policy comes

in response to the threat of Helms-Burton penalties. That case is

hard to make. Europe's new emphasis on encouraging freedom in Cuba

was initiated by the election of a new conservative Government in

Spain, the country whose lead Europe traditionally follows on Latin American issues. Spain's new Prime Minister, José María Aznar, announced

his intention to press for democracy in Cuba before the Helms-Burton

law became a factor.

Postponing the law's penalties against foreign businesses makes American policy less harmful than it might be. But it scarcely makes the United States an effective force for democratic change in Cuba. If Mr. Clinton

is unwilling to press for repeal of the Helms-Burton law, he should at least use his executive authority to take what steps he can on immigration and travel issues to encourage the flow of democratic ideas

to Cuba.