UPDATE on Humanitarian Aid and the Cuban Council of Churches

Report by Martin Shupack, Associate Director for Public Policy, Church World Service

August 3, 2006

On Monday, July 31, Rev. John L. McCullough, CWS Executive Director and CEO; Ms. Donna Derr, Director of CWS Emergency Response Network; Ms. Mavis Anderson, of CWS partner organization the Latin America Working Group; and I met at the U.S. Department of State with Mr. Caleb McCarry, Cuba Transition Coordinator, and his deputy Mr. Christopher Robinson.

We specifically discussed the humanitarian aid issues regarding the Cuban Council of Churches (CCC).

The Second Report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, issued July 10 under the leadership of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, and approved by President Bush, included a provision recommending that the U.S. Department of Commerce "[t]ighten regulations for the export of humanitarian items, other than agricultural or medical commodities, to ensure that exports are consigned to entities that support independent civil society and are not regime administered or controlled organizations, such as the Cuban Council of Churches."

1. Regarding the practical provision of aid, Mr. McCarry and Mr. Robinson assured us that "agricultural and medical commodities" would be exempt from the ban. Mr. McCarry also said that U.S. religious bodies will continue to be able to give aid directly to churches/denominations that are members of the Cuban Council of Churches. The restrictions only apply to the CCC itself.

Church-based and humanitarian organizations will also be able to send other items in coordination with the Cuban Council of Churches, so long as we designate an “acceptable” organization (not the CCC) as the "end user." However, this is still a significant problem since during situations of humanitarian crisis, such as the aftermath of a hurricane, it is often most appropriate and effective for us to list the Cuban Council of Churches as the end user, and then work with it in making decisions about the most immediate and critical areas of need.

This serves the purpose of coordinating aid and getting aid in the most efficient manner to the most vulnerable in crisis situations. In all these situations, CWS closely monitors where the aid goes and how it is utilized. But the U.S. Commerce Department will no longer give licenses for this procedure, that is, for (non-food, non-medicine) aid going through the CCC that does not designate other organizations as the end users.

For the sake of vulnerable people in need, we specifically asked that U.S. procedures make provision that enables humanitarian aid in this manner, or without having to designate specific end-users, and that no change in licensing procedures eliminate this possibility.

2. Mr. McCarry and Mr. Robinson repeatedly emphasized that Cuba was a communist dictatorship without freedom of religion and that the Cuban Council of Churches was controlled by the Cuban government.

We expressed a different view about the nature of the Cuban Council of Churches. We explained that we work with many national ecumenical councils throughout the world, which exist in a variety of political contexts and that range in the proximity of their relationship to their governments. We do not find the CCC different in this regard from some other national church councils with whom we partner. Our experience is that the CCC is committed to the integrity of its own identity and mission, and has served as a reliable faith-based partner for getting humanitarian aid to vulnerable people.

We asked that the State Department and U.S. government recognize that churches and ecumenical agencies in the United States have the right to determine their faith partners and to engage with them internationally in matters of religious fellowship and humanitarian aid, and we urged that the U.S. government do nothing to hinder this relationship.

3. We pointed out to Mr. McCarry and Mr. Robinson that the Cuban Council of Churches and its member denominations, with the support of sister denominations in the United States and the U.S. ecumenical community, have played a major role in opening up a greater space for religious freedom and dialogue in Cuba. We presented our view that the new U.S. government policies -- which severely restricting religious travel in both directions and which now threaten to limit humanitarian aid -- are counter-productive to the stated U.S. goal of encouraging Cuban religious freedom.

For the sake of religious freedom in Cuba and in the United States, we urged that these policies be reversed and that U.S. churches and ecumenical agencies and our counterparts in Cuba be allowed to maximize religious travel and exchange and to continue to cooperate fully in religious and humanitarian efforts on behalf of the Cuban people.

4. We were disturbed by Mr. McCarry’s statement that it was U.S. policy to use the humanitarian aid and religious travel licenses as a way of encouraging U.S. churches and ecumenical bodies to relate directly to individual Cuban churches rather than through the Cuban Council of Churches. We indicated to him that we strongly disagreed with the U.S. State Department attempting to shape the mission activities of U.S. churches and religious organizations to accomplish its own policy objectives. We expressed our view that this constitutes an improper interference by the government in religious judgments and decisions.

We urged the U.S. government to respect religious freedom without trying to shape the mission activities of U.S. churches and ecumenical organizations. We asked that the State Department pursue its policy objectives without interfering in religious matters.

5. Finally, we expressed our disappointment that U.S. churches and ecumenical agencies were not consulted about the policy recommendation toward the Cuban Council of Churches prior to its inclusion in the Second Report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.

We asked Mr. McCarry to help us receive a fuller hearing at this time by working to arrange a meeting for us with Mr. Thomas Shannon prior to implementation of this recommended licensing change.

While the meeting did little to assuage our concerns, we expressed appreciation to Mr. McCarry and Mr. Robinson for meeting with us, for clarifying some points of U.S. policy regarding the relationship of U.S. churches and church organizations to the Cuban Council of Churches (CCC), for their willingness to engage us in a substantive discussion of the issues, and their offer to keep the door open as we seek a more complete resolution.

Read more on the Cuba report and proposed aid restrictions

Sign a petition to oppose curtailment of humanitarian aid to Cuba