V. Problems with U.S. Travel Policy

The experience of Cuban scientists applying for entry visas to undertake scientific work reveals a number of deficiencies in U.S. visa-granting procedures. The scientists interviewed by the AAAS mission team complained that they were often treated in an unprofessional manner, frequently received no reply to their requests, or were granted visas after the event in question had already taken place. This treatment, Cuban officials argued, contributed to a decision requiring all applications for entry visas to the United States to first go through the Cuban Foreign Ministry.

Some scientists have been barred from attending meetings sponsored by ICSU; this contravenes U.S. obligations under ICSU agreements and jeopardizes the possibility of holding internationally sponsored meetings in the United States.

According to U.S. Department of State officials, the majority of visa denials investigated by the Science and Human Rights Program on behalf of Cuban scientists seeking to undertake legitimate scientific work in the United States fall under two general categories: 1) those who are not able to overcome the presumption of intent to immigrate that is uniformly imposed on all visa applicants worldwide, and 2) those who fall under Presidential Proclamation 5377, barring all officials and employees of the Cuban government and Communist Party from entry into the United states unless they are granted an exception.

Proclamation 5377 is particularly detrimental to scientists; because of the nature of the Cuban system, Cuban scientists are almost always employed by the state. In addition, exceptions to the travel ban for Cuban government officials, government employees, and members of the Communist Party of Cuba are made on a case-by-case basis. According to the Department of State’s response to our preliminary report, these exceptions are granted only when travel is considered to be in the interest of the U.S.

The implementation of Presidential Proclamation 5377 is reportedly contingent on overall U.S. Cuba policy. The type of travel that is approved, according to the Department of State, may shift accordingly. Certain fields of science may be considered more or less problematic at different times.

In addition, Department of State officials claim that at least half of the visa applications received by the United States Interests Section do not arrive twenty-one days prior to the requested travel, as required by the United States Interests section to allow adequate time for processing.

Virtually any visa denial can be justified using any of these explanations. This policy is so broadly worded that it eliminates the Department of State’s accountability for its decisions and contributes to the perception that policies are applied arbitrarily.

It is a matter of some concern to the scientific community that the decision whether to allow the visit of a Cuban scientist is based on whether it is in the interest of the United States. It is also troubling that this determination is made by a non-scientific agency, and without the benefit of scientific input. In addition, there is no requirement to document the reasons for visa denials beyond citing extremely general policy guidelines.

These policies have negatively affected both Cuban and U.S. scientists. The problems identified in the 1996 AAAS report were echoed by Cuban scientists as well as by scientists in the U.S. seeking to collaborate professionally with them. While Cuban scientists face a series of obstacles in receiving permission to travel by their own government, they also face difficulties obtaining visas to enter the U.S.

Their U.S. colleagues confront a host of obstacles of their own if they wish to conduct scientific work in Cuba. These obstacles include the apparently arbitrary and cumbersome review of specific license requests by the Office of Foreign Assets Control which, according to a number of scientists, places undue restrictions on the ability of scientists and scholars to carry out legitimate professional and educational activities.54 Scientists also point to insufficient guidance by the Office of Foreign Assets Control as to what would constitute permissible professional research and educational activities that would qualify for an exemption under the trade embargo. In addition, limitations placed on professional research "permit only a particular subset of research and exchange activities under the professional research exemption. Specifically, they require scientists and academics to show that their proposed research is directly linked to Cuba as a subject area, or that they are collecting information related to Cuba on behalf of an organization with an established interest in international relations."55

One of the most frequently expressed frustrations in the scientific community about the implementation of travel restrictions for U.S. scientists traveling to Cuba concerns the requirement that the Office of Foreign Assets Control staff determine the legitimacy of proposed research and educational activities. Compounding the problem is the fact that foreign policy factors "frequently play a major role in the State and Treasury Departments’ decisions on exemptions from trade embargoes."56 The Office of Foreign Assets Control reportedly "routinely refers applications … to the Department of State and follows the Department of State’s recommendation."57

Scientists attending the AAAS meeting on U.S. and Cuban travel policy in April 1998 also complained that current policy appears to be weighted against scientific organizations and societies. It permits travel in conjunction with existing research projects, but discourages exploratory visits to determine the possibility of new forms of scientific collaborations.58 According to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, travel to conduct professional research is judged according to basic principles taught in grammar school and high school science.59 The validity of a research project is determined by whether a hypothesis is to be proven, experiments are to be conducted, data is going to be gathered and analyzed, a conclusion is going to be reached, and research conclusions are going to be disseminated. Research projects that do not include those methodologies are likely to be rejected. Therefore, exploratory projects, or those for which more general methods of inquiry are required, are often rejected. In addition, the requirement that the individual must have established research credentials, including previous publications, excludes those initiating projects for the first time.

The Program has also received information about a series of license denials to attend international meetings taking place in Cuba based on the involvement of U.S. individuals or organizations in the planning of these meetings or conferences. The Department of the Treasury reportedly considered these meetings to be "tainted" and revoked licenses for individuals to attend those meetings.60

The appeals process instituted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control requires those who have been denied a license to travel to Cuba to resubmit their application to the same office that issued the original denial. In addition, the appealed request is not expedited; it is placed at the bottom of the queue.

Lastly, the onerous burden of collecting and reporting information to comply with the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Cuba regulations serves as a deterrent to scientists seeking to conduct legitimate scientific work in Cuba. Even when scientists comply with Office of Foreign Assets Control requirements, the backlog of requests often results in significant delays in receiving travel licenses.

54. Iles and Sklar, The Right to Travel, 31.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid., 33.

57. Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Richard Newcomb (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) as cited in Iles and Sklar, The Right to Travel, 33.

58. John M. Malin from the American Chemical Society was commenting on the recent denial of licenses to travel to Cuba for himself and the President of the American Chemical Society to meet with the President of the Cuban Chemical Society, AAAS, 3 April 1998.

59. Clara David (presentation at meeting of AAAS, Washington, D.C., 3 April 1998).

60. Prof. John Gilderbloom, telephone conversation with author, 16 April 1998.