Events

U.S.–Cuba Relations Under the Obama Administration:
Where Do We Go from Here?

Summit Council Board Room
Washington, DC
May 21, 2009

With the advent of the Obama administration a year after Raúl Castro’s succession to the presidency in Cuba, a new window of opportunity in U.S.-Cuban relations has opened. Long-entrenched positions on both sides that have persisted despite seismic shifts in the global political terrain appear ripe for adjustment or even fundamental change, especially if Track II diplomacy can complement official diplomacy. The Summit Council for World Peace, which, since its inception, has facilitated dialogue and communication between adversarial parties in long-standing conflicts around the world using Track II diplomacy, believes now is the time for great strides to be made in U.S.-Cuba relations.

The Summit Council, whose Board of Presidents is co-chaired by H.E. Rodrigo Carazo, president of Costa Rica (1978-82) and Mrs. Estrella Carazo, former First Lady of Costa Rica, is available to facilitate dialogue on U.S.-Cuba relations. President Carazo and Council Secretary General, Dr. Antonio Betancourt, have extensive experience and contacts with current and former world leaders, especially in Latin America, and the Council’s Director of Interreligious Affairs, Hon. Rev. Walter Fauntroy, member of the U.S. Congress (1971-91), was the representative of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Washington, DC.

In April 2009, a seven-member Congressional Black Caucus delegation, led by Hon. Barbara Lee, visited Cuba and reported positive meetings with both Fidel Castro and his brother, Raúl. Also on April 13, the Obama administration loosened restrictions on travel of Cuban expatriates to Cuba and the transfer of funds to relatives in Cuba. The administration further expanded the permitted private humanitarian donations and loosened the “communications embargo.” At the same time, the Obama administration left in place restrictions not only on travel to Cuba by non-Cubans but also on trade of non-agricultural or non-medical goods. Raúl Castro responded to these policy shifts by expressing a readiness to discuss even such thorny unresolved issues as human rights, freedom of the press, and political prisoners. At the Fifth Summit of the Americas, held in Trinidad and Tobago in mid-April, President Obama called for a “new beginning” in U.S.-Cuba relations. Yet, by month’s end, Fidel Castro cautioned that the response of his brother to these American overtures had been misinterpreted by the U.S. administration; Fidel seemed to be conveying that the U.S. removal of some restrictions on American travel, etc., to Cuba simply was not a quid pro quo for a Cuban response. Participants did not interpret this to mean that Cuba was unwilling to dialogue.

Following upon these developments, and building around the core expertise of its leadership, the Summit Council on May 21, hosted an informal roundtable forum of several invited experts together with Summit Council senior staff to discuss next steps recommended in U.S.-Cuban relations. The forum marked a first step in what is viewed as ongoing process of expanding connections and dialogue outward from this foundation group. Through the lively discussion, it became clear that the participants’ viewpoints clustered around the idea that at this time in history, the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba and restrictions on travel to and from Cuba are neither benefitting the Cuban people nor compelling change in Cuban government policies. Based on these perceptions, there was an apparent consensus that it would be best for the U.S. government to drop its restrictions altogether on trade and travel between the U.S. and Cuba.

After opening remarks by Dr. Mark P. Barry, Council Senior Fellow, who moderated the discussion, Dr. Betancourt, as host, offered an overview of the Summit Council’s history operating in the international arena since the 1980s. He noted that an earlier window of opportunity for improving U.S.-Cuba relations had opened in 1992 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, ending Cuba’s dependency on the USSR and commencing Cuba’s striving for self-sufficiency. If the U.S. had begun to lift sanctions against Cuba at that time, it could have inaugurated a new era for the Western Hemisphere much as subsequently occurred in its relations with Vietnam. However, that earlier window soon closed with little if any improvement in relations between the two countries having been achieved. Now we again are presented with such a window of opportunity.

President Carazo stepped softly into the topic of Cuba by first explaining how his country, Costa Rica, which is also a Caribbean basin country, has a long history of favoring dialogue and cooperation over conflict and violence. Yet, his country is particularly affected by such issues as the drug trade, money laundering, and other problems common to the region. Costa Rica looks for greater inter-hemispheric cooperation, including inter-Caribbean cooperation. Toward this end, Costa Rica offers the following three fundamental points that are relevant to achieving inter-hemispheric cooperation:

• Is a country its people or its government? Costa Ricans believe that a country is its people.
• What is an American? Latin Americans consider “Americans” to be all people living on both the North and South American continents, whereas U.S. citizens tend to think that only U.S. citizens are Americans. The U.S. perspective is an impediment to inter-hemispheric cooperation and harmony.
• Are there one or many civilizations on the American continents? Costa Ricans feel themselves as part of the same civilization as all of the countries of the hemisphere.

Costa Ricans are committed to a future that is totally open, meaning that the people should be able to live in peace without compulsion. Movement toward this is needed as a foundation for collaboration in defeating the drug problem. The results of the most recent U.S. presidential election seems to have been a good step in that direction. Improving U.S.-Cuba relations can be an important step toward advancing Costa Ricans’ ideal of living in the midst of a peaceful community of nations and he hoped that the Summit Council can play an important part in these efforts.

Rev. Fauntroy recalled the wisdom of his own teacher and friend, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who had noted that the human family must either learn to live together as brothers and sisters or we would all perish together as fools. With an eye toward the apparently great barriers separating the U.S. and Cuba, Fauntroy recalled facing and overcoming intransigent and violent opposition to civil rights for African-Americans in such places as Birmingham and Selma, Alabama, and also the seemingly impossible task in South Africa of freeing Nelson Mandela from prison and overturning the entrenched system of apartheid. These, he said, were dreams that were fulfilled, and so the group sitting there around the conference table should also hold fast to the dream of open relations between Cuba and the U.S.

Offering a concrete suggestion of how to proceed, Fauntroy proposed that a systematic effort be made to promote dialogue between leaders on both sides who are “spiritually mature and technically competent” and ready to explore ways to move through this window of opportunity. The first step would be for the Forum participants to identify those prepared leaders on both sides.

The discussion coalesced around the following ideas:

• There is indeed a window of opportunity at this time that may close within a year or two. The essence of this window of opportunity is the changed expectations of the people in both Cuba and the U.S. due to recent changes in their governments.
• The Cuban policy changes announced so far by the Obama administration are a step in the right direction, but fall far short of what could reasonably done at this time.
• The U.S. quid pro quo approach of offering some policy changes, then waiting to see what response the Cubans will make, is not appropriate in the context of U.S.-Cuba relations. A preferable and recommended approach would be to evaluate what policy changes will benefit the people of Cuba, then unilaterally make those changes without waiting for a response from the Cuban government. The U.S. should not hold its Cuba policy hostage by insisting on a reciprocal response by the Cuban government; rather, the U.S. should act magnanimously.
• At the same time, in making any policy changes toward Cuba it is important to be sensitive to the message. Specifically, the U.S. cannot appear to ignore human rights.
• It is important that the discussion and evaluation of alternate approaches not become polarized into human rights versus business.
• The Council’s proposals should begin with just two priority issues and not focus on too many  issues: ending the U.S. embargo and establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. For example, removing the restrictions on cultural exchange programs is one step the Obama administration could take. Removal of restrictions relates to helping the people of Cuba. Discussion of human rights will prove far more successful once U.S. relations with Cuba are normalized.
• One factor is that there seems to be no senior person in the Obama administration who strongly promotes Latin American issues.
• To effect the larger changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba, the Obama administration will need to push Congress, and the people will need to push the administration.
• The farm lobby is generally satisfied with the current policies affecting agricultural trade with Cuba because the farmers are paid in cash.

The Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ): A Catalyst for Peace

Summit Council Board Room and Library
1112 16th St., NW, Suite 540,
Washington, DC
March 17, 2009

The Summit Council for World Peace has been supporting efforts toward the peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula since 1991 when the Chairman of its Board of Presidents, H.E. Rodrigo Carazo, former President of Costa Rica (1978-82), and Secretary General, Dr. Antonio Betancourt, first visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). During the decade of the 1990s, the Summit Council organized several high-level conferences on U.S. relations with the two Koreas, created an International Commission for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea, and facilitated U.S.-DPRK dialogue during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Since 1997, supporting the launch of its sister organization, the Universal Peace Federation (UPF), the Summit Council assisted UPF in developing programs for its Northeast Asia Peace Initiative, which has contributed toward peace and stability in the region. Now, in 2009, the Summit Council is resuming its own efforts in this area.

On March 17, the Council hosted an informal roundtable forum considering how the unique resources and political context of the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) could be used as a focal point for peace and conservation on the Korean Peninsula. The featured presentation was by Mr. Hall Healy, President of the DMZ Forum, which is playing a major role in efforts to assure that the treasure trove of natural wildlife and ecological services currently found in the DMZ and adjoining protected areas to the south, the Civilian Control Zone, will be conserved for future generations.

The meeting included a dozen individuals representing professional expertise related to the Korean Peninsula in such diverse areas as conservation biology, economics, law, politics, diplomacy, military affairs, and culture. Representing the Summit Council were Secretary General Betancourt; Director of Inter-religious Affairs, Hon. Walter Fauntroy; Executive Director, Mr. William Selig, and Senior Fellow, Dr. Mark P. Barry.

After opening remarks by Dr. Betancourt and Dr. Barry, Mr. Healy presented an overview of the remarkable biological recovery of the DMZ from its state of total devastation at the end of the Korean War in 1953. Established as a buffer by the terms of the war-ending armistice, and sustained to today through military enforcement, the DMZ roughly follows the 38th parallel in bisecting the peninsula into North and South. There is a green belt comprising the DMZ, about 2.5 miles wide and 155 miles long, and to the south the adjoining protected Civilian Control Zone, ranging from 3 to 12 miles wide. This total area has become a haven for diverse species, including rare birds, lynx, otters, Asian black bears, a rare goat called the amur goral, over 80 fish species, and more than 1,200 plant species.

Hall Healy, President, DMZ Forum; Dr. Seung-ho Lee, Co-Founder, DMZ Forum; Dr. Antonio Betancourt, Secretary General, Summit Council; Dr. Mark P. Barry, Senior Fellow, Summit Council.

Uniqueness of the DMZ

The area is a rarity, not only on the peninsula, but in the entire world, as a site protected from human intervention while human use has heavily altered the surrounding land. Within this protected area, five of the major Korean rivers flow, delivering precious fresh water into populated areas where the water is heavily used. Additionally, with the DMZ being 75 percent forested, it provides significant opportunity to remove carbon from the increasingly polluted air of nearby urban areas and for carbon sequestration.

One of the most visible and universally attractive values of this region is its position as a haven for rare birds. As development and extensive use of the surrounding areas has depleted more and more of the environment, the combined DMZ and Civilian Control Zone (which could be called the “DMZ Green Belt”) has become a major stopover in migratory pathways for hundreds of species of birds, many of which might be extinct without such a haven. The Red-crowned Crane, which nests in Siberia and Mongolia and winters over in several spots, including the DMZ Green Belt, is highly endangered with less than 2,000 wild living individuals. This beloved symbol for Koreans of long life, good fortune, and fidelity, captures the attention and support of many Koreans for an initiative to conserve the resources of the DMZ Green Belt.

Unlike the DMZ proper, the Civilian Control Zone itself is not a totally protected area, as the South Korean government permits rice farmers to live there seasonally while they tend rice fields. After the harvest, however, the area is largely unoccupied, which is when the cranes come in to winter-over, feeding on the rice that was passed over in the harvest. The Civilian Control Zone’s unique nature is threatened by creeping development. Land speculators are buying titles to property once held both in the Civilian Control Zone and the DMZ proper. One protection against an onrush of development is the fact that an estimated one million land mines remain in place in the DMZ Green Belt, especially in certain corridors.

Properly managed, the DMZ Green Belt could become a long-term economic asset of the Korean people. The conservation of wildlife and landscape could be the foundation for eco-tourism, sustainable harvesting of fish and timber, and the ecological services of fresh water and air purification. Additionally the DMZ Green Belt could be a source of species valuable for repopulating plant and animal species in parts of the peninsula from which they have been eliminated.

Achieving such a goal will require buy-in from both of the governments on the peninsula, and to date the DPRK has shown only modest interest at best in such an initiative. Recognizing this, the DMZ Forum sees beyond conservation as an end in itself to also using conservation as a catalyst for peace-building on three levels: Senior Level; Mid-level; and Grassroots Level. Programs at any and all of the three levels, it is thought, can help to build mutual trust and confidence that parties from the two nations can collaborate for mutual benefit, a realization that contributes toward peace.

DMZ Coalition formed

In the larger context of peace-building, the DMZ Forum has established the DMZ Coalition, whose members include personnel in national government ministries, county-level programs, NGOs, academic research programs, and individuals combining their resources toward using the DMZ as the focal point for efforts toward peace and conservation.

Turning the entire area into a peace park is one idea being pursued by the DMZ Forum. Toward this end the DMZ Coalition includes the Peace Parks Foundation of South Africa, which has been a pioneer in creating peace parks lying on both sides of a border between two opponent countries having reasons to collaborate in managing the area of the peace park.

Some of the key points and suggestions brought up in the discussion were the following:

• A memorial to honor the fallen soldiers of all nationalities from both sides who died in the Korean conflict would be very attractive to the Koreans given their reverence for their ancestors. Making it one memorial remembering all of them could serve as a symbol uniting both sides. Given all the sensitivities, it may be necessary to cast the memorial in a very artistic and metaphorical mode looking toward the future, without going into specifics about the number of people of different nationalities that were killed. One possible site mentioned was the White Horse Mountain battlefield, that is close to the DMZ, in which there were an estimated 20,000 casualties in 10 days in October 1952.Considering the barriers to getting agreement to go forward on such a goal as a memorial honoring the fallen soldiers, an even simpler suggestion was that of planting flowers or gardens along the roadways and railways in the two transportation corridors crossing the DMZ. One participant suggested that it may be possible to build an entrepreneurial aspect into the flower planting project. (It was pointed out, however, that at present the government of DPRK had closed both the western and the eastern transportation corridors.)

• More broadly, the suggestion was made that any of the ideas that might be brought forward for the DMZ Green Belt, whether it be conservation, a peace park, a memorial honoring fallen soldiers, planting flowers, or any other, should be formulated in ways that show how local people can earn money through their involvement with the project.

• The broadest idea put forward was that the DMZ be made into a model peace zone administered by the United Nations and developed as a showcase about peace with exhibits, monuments, museums, and peace parks nestled sustainably amidst the healthy and flourishing natural environment. Dr. Barry noted that this was proposed by Summit Council founder, Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon, at the United Nations in August 2000.

From a comprehensive perspective, it was suggested that two tracks could be pursued: a quiet, less visible track could seek to advance the memorial while the visible, public track would focus on environmental aspects.

The Summit Council believes the time is ripe to offer the new U.S. administration innovative soft-power ideas for reducing tensions on the Korean peninsula and promoting non-governmental initiatives that could lay the foundations for permanent peace. Toward this end the Summit Council and DMZ Forum discussed the possibility of convening a formal conference in Washington, DC, or New York later this year on peaceful uses of the DMZ. It would be hoped to obtain North Korea’s agreement and cooperation on a project involving peaceful uses of the DMZ in the not-too-distant future.

Religion in Peace and Reconciliation:
Building a Peace Temple in Seoul, Korea

Presented by
the Summit Council for World Peace
January 27, 2009
The University Club, Washington, DC

INTRODUCTION

The program was opened by Summit Council Secretary General Dr. Antonio Betancourt with an explanation of the history of the Summit Council for World Peace having been active in the 1980s through 1997, then shifting its attention until last year to support the establishment of the Universal Peace Federation (UPF) as a substantial international organization. Now with a newly-established relationship with the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International (FFWPUI) and the Tongil Foundation, the Summit Council will resume its activities in contributing to peace-building through religion and spirituality along with politics, economics, and other spheres of professional activity. He concluded by affirming the Summit Council’s commitment, with the support of the Co-Chairs of the Summit Council’s Board of Presidents, to work towards the building of the Temple of Peace and Unity in Seoul Korea, a project that will be part of the discussion in this conference today.

HIGHLIGHTS

President Rodrigo Carazo (President of Costa Rica, 1978-82), Co-chair of the Summit Council’s Board of Presidents, explained that Costa Rica historically has focused on peace as a way of life and as a cultural result, embodies respect for the thinking of others. The Costa Rican government declared peace with the earth and determined that government should help those who are working in one way or another to safeguard the environment.

In terms of tourism, Costa Rica decided some 15 or 20 years ago that instead of building more deluxe hotels and swimming pools, it would create nature preserves in which people could experience the wonders of nature. In this way it acted on the principle of maintaining peace with the earth and has become a prime center of ecotourism, which not only brings income to the country but also contributes environmental qualities that promote health within the country and even contribute positively to the environmental quality of the planet.

William Selig, Executive Director of the Summit Council, gave a Power Point presentation on the World Peace and Unity Temple — a project being spearheaded by Rev. Hyung Jin Moon and Dr. Kook Jin Moon on behalf of their parents,, the Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon and Mrs. Hak Ja Han Moon, with a goal to complete it by 2013. All faith traditions are to be represented and to share in the ownership of the project. The sanctuary is to accommodate 210,000 people through multiple services each week.

He explained that it is natural to call Korea the nation of the new Jerusalem, since Pyongyang (in present-day North Korea) had in the early 1900s manifested such vigorous Christianity that it had gained a reputation as the “Jerusalem of the East.”

Paul Chamberlin, adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, presented suggestions for a Christian response to the ongoing suffering in North Korea and noted that members of other religions may or may not be in a position to respond similarly. He began with an analysis of the current status of relations between North and South Korea, China, and the US. Major impediments to unification of the peninsula are distrust, fear and asymmetric objectives, such as for North Korea: regime survival; for South Korea: gradual integration; for China: prevent North Korea collapse; for the U.S.: prevent nuclear proliferation.

North Korea controls the population through pervasive fear and distrust. This creates a vicious cycle devoid of compassion and love. What then can a Christian do? Chamberlin presented an outline of an appropriate response for a devoted Christian wanting to apply Christian principles toward the North.

In general, Christians should love North Koreans and try to relieve their suffering [his remarks evoked Rev. Moon’s 2000 address on his 80th birthday, World Unification and North-South Unification Will Be Accomplished by True Love]. This derives from the principles of loving your enemy and caring for the poor and the weak. In the long term, the actions would include: 1) maintain a heart of love for North Koreans; 2) pray for both the oppressed and the oppressors, including Kim Jong Il; 3) assist refugees; 4) speak the truth in love to North Koreans; 5) inspire religious and secular leaders to interact with the North Korean superstructure; 6) encourage North Korea to respect human rights for its people; and 7) peacefully demonstrate on behalf of suffering North Koreans.

Dr. Frank Kaufmann, Executive Director, Inter Religious Federation for World Peace, presented a foundation analysis of the source of conflict among religious believers tracing back to the basic makeup of the human person comprising spiritual, mental, and physical aspects.

In this model, the spiritual and physical aspects have distinctly different natures and priorities and the mental aspect is in the mediating position between the two. The spiritual aspect seeks oneness (nonduality), constancy (unchanging-ness), and eternity, while the physical aspect seeks multiplicity (infinite variety), variance (incessant change), and temporality (definition in time). The mental aspect, which includes intellectual, emotional, and purposeful components is to fulfill the role of discernment, judgment, and decision, and in this way guide the human being into a harmonized fusion of the spiritual and physical aspects.

Conflict arises when the intellectual, emotional, and/or purposeful components are bigoted against either the spiritual or the physical aspects. For example, conflict can arise between religious believers when their mental component favors the differences sought by the physical aspect over the nonduality sought by the spiritual aspect.

This all relates to the World Peace and Unity Temple in the fact that it is to be a sacred space that will aid people of diverse religions in aligning their mental aspect to a proper balance toward all the other faith traditions.

Hon. Rev. Walter Fauntroy, member of Congress (1971-91), a senior American civil rights leader, recited words of a song about having had many disappointments but also having “sipped enough of the nectar from the roses of life” to keep on dreaming, and trusting friends, and sowing seeds. In that vein he expressed his further dreams: that he expects to live to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians, a unified Korea, and the eradication of extreme poverty. He called for spiritual leaders to be headlights and not taillights, to lead and further asserted that religion and politics are equally important in affairs of state.

Regarding economics, he explained two different approaches to economics: Trickle-down and percolate-up. In trickle-down economics, which was the model applied in the Reagan era, the money is placed in the hands of the wealthy few because supposedly “they know what to do with the money.” The expectation was that they would invest the money in industry and businesses that would produce employment for the people. Instead they took the money and invested in creating the industries overseas where the labor was less expensive. That mode of capital distribution by the government died on Sept. 15, 2008, when then-Treasury Secretary Paulson announced the bailout of banks holding too many failed mortgages.

Now, in the Obama era, we are about to see the implementation of the other model: percolate up economics. We’ll put the money in the hands of the people who need it to survive and who will spend it for living essentials, thus creating a demand for products and hence jobs.

As a guideline, he explained that everyone needs five things: income, education, housing, healthcare, and justice. It is in our own best interest to assure that everyone has these because if they don’t, they will come after or detract from my own portion of those.

Dr. Norman Bailey, former Senior Director for International Economic Policy under President Reagan, noted that the current economic and financial system reflects the perversion of the people centrally responsible for these systems. To change the problems of these systems, which are an outside manifestation, we need to begin by changing the inside aspect, the moral fiber of the persons centrally responsible for these systems.

Dr. Betancourt noted that without addressing the issues of abject poverty in America and in the world, there can be no peace. No matter how many religious leaders come and meet, and conduct dialogue among religions, that is not sufficient for peace without addressing the issue of economic and social justice.

In conclusion, he said that peace and development was the original goal of the Summit Council. At this time, the Council intends to expand its goals to peace and development in the context of the role of religion, spirituality, and universal shared values in the making of peace, the governance of states, and the relationship between states in the healing of the ancient hatreds and grievances that plague communities, countries and regions around the world. It is in light of these goals that the Summit Council advocates the building of the World Peace and Unity Temple in Korea.