IV. U.S. Restrictions on Cuban Scientists

Cuban and American scientists have been actively collaborating since the middle of the nineteenth century. Joint expeditions were organized by naturalists from both countries until the 1940s when scientific exchanges and collaboration became victim to pervasive political hostilities between the two countries.

The McCarran-Walter Act’s McGovern Amendment, passed in 1977 to achieve greater U.S. compliance with the Helsinki Act’s basic principle of the freedom of international travel, limited the grounds for visa exclusions based on ideological considerations. This exclusion had previously been used to prohibit entry into the U.S. by individuals such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Carlos Fuentes, and the widow of Salvador Allende, to name only a few.35

In 1990, the McCarren-Walter Act was repealed to avoid the use of exclusionary visas for activities protected under the First Amendment. However, the repeal did not affect the use of presidential proclamations to achieve the same results. Presidential Proclamation 5377, issued by President Reagan in 1985, codified a travel ban imposed on employees of the Cuban government or members of the Cuban Communist Party by claiming that their unrestricted entry into the United States would be detrimental to U.S. interests. (See Appendix X for the full text of Proclamation 5377.) Denials based on Proclamation 5377 fall under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

However, stated U.S. policy exempts scientists on scientific exchange (and for educational purposes) from the normal restrictions. Yet there are numerous cases where this exemption is ignored. Even scientists falling within the established categories of individuals permitted to travel between the U.S. and Cuba have been denied visas—in violation of the explicit exemption.

In its response to our preliminary report,36 the Department of State informed AAAS that it does not grant exceptions to the Presidential Proclamation based on the legitimacy of the proposed travel. Rather, exceptions are granted when it is in the best interest of the U.S. to do so. He went on to state that "sometimes it is not in the interest of the U.S. to grant exceptions to otherwise legitimate scientists."37 In addition, exceptions are not granted if the proposed travel appears primarily to promote Cuban goals.

However, no indication is given as to how this determination is made. It is our understanding that it is made exclusively on political grounds, as there are no mechanisms in place to involve members of the scientific community in the decision process. Nor, to our knowledge, are independent scientists or scientific agencies of the U.S. government consulted to determine the impact of such decisions on the scientific community.

Cuban scientists wishing to visit the United States must go through the State Department, via the consular officers who issue visas. Most often, Cuban scientists apply for visas through the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Cuban scientists must first overcome the hurdles that all foreigners from poor and/or repressive countries who wish to enter the United States routinely face: the pervasive suspicion that a request for a temporary visa is in reality a pretext to enter the United States given by someone who actually wants to immigrate. The Science and Human Rights Program of AAAS has anecdotal evidence that younger Cuban scientists have a harder time obtaining visas than older scientists for this reason.38

In addition, existing standards are applied unevenly and arbitrarily to both Cuban and U.S. scientists. Those to whom licenses and visas are ultimately granted often receive them only after extreme difficulty and delay. According to the State Department, from January 1, 1997, through March 31, 1998, eighty-two percent of Cuban scientists who applied were granted visas.39 However, these numbers are meaningless because many were received too late for the intended travel to take place, such as in the cases of Dr. Hiram Gonzalez and Dr. Pedro Pruna, to name only a few. Their cases are described in detail in the section of this report on Cuban scientists who were denied U.S. entry visas.

In several cases, the intervention of AAAS and other scientific organizations has been necessary and has obtained positive results. Although the scientific community has mechanisms in place to determine whether a particular meeting or conference has scientific legitimacy, in the form of certification procedures administered by the ICSU, government employees are not consulting ICSU’s procedures and certifications in their decisions on visa and license applications.40

According to the U.S. Interests Section, visas are denied to scientists working on subjects that could be used for defense or to further Cuban economic interests.41 Again, there is no indication of how this determination is made. Individuals have reportedly been granted entry into the U.S. to participate in environmental conferences, medical meetings, and research activities in the fields of biochemistry, anthropology, biology, global change, remote sensing, geology, linguistics, and economics.42 At other times, visa requests for the same subjects have been denied. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to why some visits were in the interest of the U.S., while others were not.

Mission participants were also told that visas are routinely denied to government employees above a certain level of authority; however, that level has not been officially designated. This restriction places all scientists in Cuba at risk of denial, because everyone working in science in Cuba is a government employee. Cuban scientists can thus only guess whether they fall within these broad parameters. In addition, individuals who have attained a certain level of recognition in their professions are also potentially excluded from entry into the U.S.

In a recent conference organized jointly by five academic departments of the University of California at Berkeley, eleven out of twenty-two invited Cuban participants were denied U.S. entry visas. Among the reasons given for these denials was the high level of professional achievement and status of the individuals who were invited. Conference organizers were told that visas would be issued if less prominent individuals were invited instead. Berkeley organizers considered this request to compromise academic standards and infringe academic freedom.

Cuban Scientists Denied U.S. Entry Visas

For organizational purposes, we have classified the more than twenty-five scientists interviewed during the AAAS mission to Cuba into four general categories:

The following cases illustrate the four categories listed above:

Category 1: High-level government officials seeking to attend meetings in the U.S. organized by international bodies

Dr. Carlos Gomez Gutierrez is the Vice Minister of Science, Technology and the Environment. He is a member of the Cuban Academy of Science and Cuba’s representative to the International Council on Scientific Unions. He is a former vice president of the Cuban Academy of Science.

In 1996, ICSU organized a meeting in Washington, D.C. The International Council on Scientific Unions’ Committee to which Dr. Gomez belonged was to meet at that time. Although Dr. Gomez warned committee members of his previous difficulties with travel to the U.S., ICSU proceeded with the decision to hold the meeting in Washington. Dr. Gomez received a visa to attend the International Council on Scientific Unions meeting; however, upon his arrival, immigration officials detained him at Newark Airport from 6:30 p.m. until 7:30 a.m. the next morning. During that time, he missed his connecting flight to Washington. He was held with illegal immigrants in a small locked room. Two of the individuals being held with him were led off in chains to see their lawyers. He, however, was not allowed to make a phone call to the Cuban Interests Section. He was told that the visa issued by the United States Interests Section did not correspond to his diplomatic status. When Dr. Gomez did not appear at the airport in Washington, D.C., the Cuban Interests Section made an official protest and contacted the National Academy of Science for assistance. At 7:30 a.m. he was finally allowed to make a phone call and was released from custody. The ICSU committee meeting was over by the time Dr. Gomez arrived in Washington, D.C. There was no formal apology and no investigation was initiated to determine who was responsible for Dr. Gomez’s treatment.

The mistreatment of government officials contributes to pervasive political tension. Mission delegates repeatedly heard complaints from Cuban scientists about harassment and lack of respect at the hands of U.S. government representatives.43

Category 2: High-level government officials invited to attend meetings organized by U.S. governmental agencies

Another instance described by Dr. Carlos Gomez Gutierrez, which occurred while he was serving as Vice President of the Cuban Academy of Science, falls into the second category. Dr. Gomez was among a group of scientists invited to attend a meeting in the U.S. in November 1995. (A copy of the letter sent to Dr. Gomez from John H. Gibbons, in his capacity as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, can be found in Appendix III) The meeting was organized by Vice President Gore to study the meteorological phenomenon El Niño. At the time, Dr. Gomez was also president of the Cuban Committee for Global Change. Cuba has conducted many studies on El Niño, which is a weather pattern that originates in the north and moves down through Florida and then to Cuba.

Dr. Gomez requested an entry visa to attend Vice President Gore’s meeting almost four months in advance. Vice ministers, government officials, and scientists were among those invited. His visa request was denied. He was told by representatives of the U.S. Interests Section to not take it personally and that his visit, coming soon after a visit by Fidel Castro to the United Nations, was inconvenient. He was unofficially told that his request was denied because he was a high-level government official.

The case reveals an apparent conflict of interest between U.S. government officials inviting Dr. Gomez and U.S. travel policy. In addition, typically no effort is made by the United States Interests Section to inform visa applicants why their request was denied. This practice contributes to the perception that decisions are made arbitrarily and without guidance from established policy.44

Category 3: Government employees seeking to attend meetings in the U.S. organized by international bodies

In February 1992, Dr. Hiram Gonzalez Alonso from the Natural History Museum in Havana traveled to the U.S. to attend a roundtable on biodiversity. In August 1992, he was elected president of the Caribbean Ornithological Society during their annual meeting held in Puerto Rico. However, in November 1992, he encountered difficulties when attempting to attend the Society’s International Convention on the Study of Wetlands. Dr. Gonzalez claims that his visa request had been submitted months in advance, in keeping with U.S. regulations. However, the United States Interests Section did not contact him until three days before the start of the meeting. Three days after the meeting began he was told he could pick up his visa. He was thus unable to attend and had to write a letter to meeting organizers explaining the reason for his absence.

The practice of granting visas one or two days prior to a meeting’s starting date or several days after a meeting has begun is reportedly common. Cuban scientists and officials who invest time and resources in preparation for the meetings view this practice as harassment. Delays of this kind are in practice equivalent to a visa denial, because the delay generally precludes scientists’ participation in the event in question.45

Esteban Dias Franco was invited by a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History to attend an international meeting sponsored by the American Paleontological Society. He was interviewed by United States Interests Section personnel and immediately denied a visa based on "possible immigrant" status. When he contacted Museum staff to inform them that he could not attend, they made some inquiries. He was called back to a second meeting at the United States Interests Section. He ultimately was granted a visa.

These cases reveal a pattern in which sponsoring U.S. institutions or individuals who respond to visa denials by making direct inquiries to the United States Interests Section or the Department of State sometimes are able to have an initial visa denial reversed. Such a practice suggests that hosting groups should become involved in their prospective guests’ visa application process, as this appears to significantly increase their chances of obtaining a visa. However necessary such scrutiny may be to control illegal immigration, the stringency of the requirements has made it extremely difficult for Cuban scientists to overcome them. One can certainly question the need for such strong requirements when contrasting Dr. Dias Franco’s experience to that of recent sports figures given free rein to immigrate to the United States.46

Dr. Jose R. Jordan, President of the Council of Public Health Societies, Consejo de Sociedades de Salud Publica, and a specialist on growth development and injuries, has been attending international meetings since 1947. He has attended all but two International Pediatrics Association annual meetings. One of the meetings that he was precluded from attending was held in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1986. Although he requested permission two months in advance and was slated to participate in a roundtable, his visa application was denied.

In another instance, Dr. Jordan was to travel to the U.S. with seven other pediatricians. Forty-eight hours prior to their trip, his was the only visa granted. The others were traveling under the auspices of the Cuban Ministry of Health; he was traveling as a consultant to the World Health Organization. In 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics, of which he has been a member since 1957, awarded him the E.H. Christopherson Award. The award was to be presented to him in November 1993 during the American Academy of Pediatrics annual meeting in Washington, D.C. He was to attend with his wife and give a lecture. The day before they were to depart, they were informed that their visas had not arrived. He never heard from the United States Interests Section again concerning that trip.

The arbitrary application of policies and failure to respond to visa requests reveal a lack of professionalism on the part of United States Interests Section staff and contribute to allegations of harassment.47

Another physician, Dr. Jeremia Ornandez Ojitos, tried to attend an American Public Health Association meeting in 1996. Although he applied with ample time, his visa request was denied.48

Dr. Luis Alberto Montero Cabrera specializes in interdisciplinary chemistry and computer physics. He is a member of both the Cuban Chemical Society and the Cuban Physical Society.

Dr. Montero is one of five Cuban scientists refused entry visas to the U.S. to attend the Sanibel Island Symposium on Quantum Chemistry, which is sponsored by the International Council on Scientific Unions and has been held annually since 1957. (Please see the letter to the editor, which appeared in the New York Times on 29 April 1997, sent on behalf of these five scientists by representatives of the New York Academy of Science, in Appendix IV.) According to the Consular Section Officer at the United States Interests Section, the scientists were denied visas in accordance with the 1985 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which specifies that employees of the Cuban government and Cuban Communist Party members should not be granted visas to enter the United States without permission from the Department of State.

Dr. Montero has made repeated attempts to attend a variety of meetings in the United States, some of which have been sponsored by international organizations. As far back as 1986 and 1987 his visa applications have gone unanswered. The differing responses to Dr. Montero's visa applications suggest an arbitrary implementation of regulations. The outcome of Dr. Montero’s various visa requests since 1990 is given below:

At the time of Dr. Montero’s interview, he was awaiting the outcome of another visa request.

The American scientific community actively supported the right of Dr. Montero and his colleagues to travel to the Sanibel meeting by initiating a major letter writing campaign on their behalf and conducting meetings with Department of State representatives to register their concern.49

The repeated denial of entry visas to Cuban scientists to attend internationally sponsored meetings may result in an increased number of instances in which important scientific meetings are relocated to foreign countries.50

Category 4: Government employees seeking to attend U.S. sponsored meetings, to accept scholarships, or to participate in long-term research and exchange programs in the U.S.

Dr. Pedro Pruna from the Center for the Study of the History and Organization of Science, Centro de Estudios de Historia y Organización de la Ciencia, has been a visiting scholar at the Smithsonian Institution archives and has had a range of experiences when attempting to participate in exchange activities.

The Center tried to carry out an exchange program some years ago, but it was canceled due to visa denials. Ten investigators had requested visas for the bilateral exchange. Although the visas were requested well in advance, the denial came only days prior to their scheduled departure.

Dr. Pruna participated in a senior postdoctoral fellowship program at the Smithsonian. These exchanges are reportedly fairly common. In 1994 and 1995, there were several Cuban postdoctoral students participating in exchange programs in the U.S.

The varied responses reflect inconsistency in the application of the law. In addition, informing individuals of their visa status at the last minute serves as a deterrent to the planning of future exchanges.

Another individual, Giraldo Alaryon Garcia, who spent six months in the United States between 1991 and 1992, was in 1995 denied a visa to participate in an exchange with the American Museum of Natural History because of suspected "possible immigrant" status.

Younger scientists appear to be particularly likely to be denied entry visas into the U.S. under "possible immigrant" status. Such denials impede the ability of young Cubans to experience a system other than their own and deny them the opportunity to develop valuable international professional contacts.51

Johns Hopkins University invited Fe Inglesias Garcia to the U.S. for one month beginning on 1 February 1997. He immediately contacted the United States Interests Section regarding a request for a visa. The request reportedly went through the Cuban Foreign Ministry with ample time for processing. However, on 29 January 1997 he was informed that his request was denied. After a Johns Hopkins University representative called the United States Interests Section, the visa was approved.

Changes in the outcome of visa requests resulting from the personal involvement of U.S. individuals call into question the basis under which the original decision was made.52

Carlos Batista Odio, a political scientist/economist, Director of the Center for the Study of the United States, and married to a U.S. citizen, traveled to the United States in 1980, 1981, 1991, 1993, 1994, and twice in 1995. He participated in an exchange with the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies from March to May 1996. After he returned to Cuba, he attempted to attend the nineteenth Latin American Studies Association meeting in the U.S., but was denied a visa under the "possibility of espionage" status. In November 1996, he was again denied a visa, this time under "possible immigrant" status. In January 1997, his wife went to speak with the consular. She was told that "wives don’t always know what their husbands are up to." Dr. Batista wanted to talk to the vice consul about requesting a visa waiver to clarify the situation, but he was not granted a waiver.

Failure to provide an individual with the right to respond to a serious allegation is contrary to American legal tradition. In addition, the two charges on which the denials were based are contradictory. One implies that Dr. Batista would remain in the U.S. if given permission to enter; the other implies that he is working for the Cuban government and sought to travel to the U.S. presumably to gather information to bring back to Cuba.53

The University of Havana provided mission delegates with their own list of the results of visa requests made by academics seeking to travel to the U.S. for scientific purposes. Of the twenty-two relevant cases in their listing, twelve were denied entry visas to the U.S., eight were granted visas, and two received notice of their visa approval too late to participate in the stated event. This list appears in Appendix V.

35. Ibid., xiii.

36. Ranneberger, letter to Chapman.

37. Ibid.

38. Scientists interviewed by mission delegates repeatedly stated that younger scientists are denied visas more frequently than their older colleagues.

39. Michael Ranneberger, "U.S. Policy Toward Cuba" (paper presented at meeting of AAAS, Washington, D.C., April 1998.)

40. Iles and Sklar, The Right to Travel, 33.

41. Merrie Blocker Merlo, conversation with author, Havana, Cuba, 13 May 1997.

42. Michael Ranneberger, "U.S. Policy Toward Cuba" (paper presented at meeting of AAAS, Washington, D.C., April 1998).

43. The Department of State correctly points out that, because the visa was granted, this is not a visa denial issue. It goes on to say that Dr. Gomez Gutierrez's arrest was not planned, but was merely the unfortunate reaction of INS officers who are unaccustomed to receiving Cuban officials. The State Department provided no explanation, however, regarding the lack of a formal apology or investigation into the violation of Dr. Gomez Gutierrez's right to travel.

44. In response to Dr. Gomez Gutierrez's second complaint, AAAS was told that it is longstanding U.S. policy to not include Cuban government officials in meetings hosted by high-level U.S. government officials. The invitation to Dr. Gomez Gutierrez was described as a clerical error. Regarding the lack of response by the United States Interests Section, Department of State officials informed AAAS that visa approvals and denials are returned to the Cuban Foreign Ministry. It is apparently understood that denials fall under section 212 (f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), which bans travel to the U.S. by employees of the Cuban government or members of the Cuban Communist Party. Providing notification to visa applicants, according to the Department of State, is the responsibility of the Cuban Foreign Ministry.

45. State Department officials explained that late visa approvals are a consequence of insufficient leadtime given to process requests. In a response to our initial report, officials stated that the Cuban government significantly delays forwarding applications to the U.S. Interests Section and then blames the U.S. for the late approvals. They went on to say that late applications are expedited to the extent possible.

46. The Department of State's response pointed out that applicants worldwide are ineligible for visas unless they can provide compelling evidence of a residence abroad that they do not intend to abandon. If additional evidence is submitted for consideration, such a refusal can be overcome. According to the Department of State, this case has nothing to do with the implementation of travel restrictions on Cubans.

47. Department of State officials suggest that Dr. Jordan may have submitted his application late; however, we are not aware of any tracking system to determine if this was indeed the case.

48. The Department of State response indicates that Dr. Ornandez Ojitos' visa request may have been denied under Section 212 (f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 5377.

49. The Program's Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility wrote to U.S. government officials and issued a AAAS Human Rights Action Network (AAASHRAN) alert on behalf of the Cuban scientists urging that the U.S. government approve the visa requests. The alert can be found under the Cuba section of the AAAS Human Rights Action Network archive accessible at http://shr.aaas.org/aaashran.htm.

50. According to Department of State officials, even small changes in overall U.S. Cuba policy can affect the implementation of Presidential Proclamation 5377. The type of travel that is approved, reportedly, shifts accordingly. Quantum chemistry is apparently one of the subjects that "lies close to the line." Dr. Montero's visa denial in 1997 may therefore be due to a request made by President Clinton to reduce the number of exceptions granted to the travel ban following the shoot down of the Brothers to the Rescue plane in 1996.

51. According to Department of State officials, Mr. Alaryon Garcia's denial falls under the "intent to immigrate" criteria. Their response states that it is possible that Mr. Alaryon Garcia was not able to overcome the presumption of intent to immigrate in 1995, whereas in 1991 he may have had a stronger case.

52. Fe Inglesias Garcia's case, according to the Department of State, demonstrates its willingness to reconsider denials in light of additional information.

53. Department of State officials claim that this case falls outside of denials under the Cuban travel restrictions.