Response To A Washington Times Editorial From Those Criticized And On Behalf Of Those Criticized.
/The Washington Times
Washington DC
25 May 2022
Biden’s easing of sanctions on Cuba helps a cruel regime hurt its people
The administration is falsely claiming it will benefit Cubans
By Editorial Board
Excerpt: “Second, the notion of entrepreneurs or independent contractors conducting business freely under the Cuban military dictatorship is a myth. No one on the island gets to conduct any business without regime approval or connections, which makes the notion of independent business ownership both a legal and factual impossibility. On May 10 the U.S. issued a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control permitting a U.S. company to finance a Cuban company — an act which almost certainly violates the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, which outlawed U.S. credit to Cuba.”
On 10 May 2022, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a license for a United States-based entity, in this instance an LLC created specifically for the transaction, to deliver a direct equity investment in and provide direct financing to an officially-registered small business created, owned, and operated in the Republic of Cuba by a Republic of Cuba national. The license application was submitted on 10 June 2021.
The Washington Times Editorial Board delivers two accusations.
First, there are no “independent” entrepreneurs in the Republic of Cuba.
Second, the license issued “almost certainly violates” the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”)- and conveniently excludes precisely what is this violation.
The first accusation is appalling, particularly having been delivered from a publication that celebrates entrepreneurs- and writes continually when these individuals encounter governmental headwinds- yet they persevere. The Washington Times always applauds their perseverance.
The government of the Republic of Cuba is criticized for not trusting its 11.3 million citizens to make good decisions. Those who criticize the decision by the OFAC are engaging in the same distrust- the message is the self-employed and owners and managers of micro, small, and medium-size enterprises (MSMEs) cannot be trusted not to be victimized by the government of the Republic of Cuba; that their efforts to create, to maintain, and expand their nascent businesses are nothing but a sham, a Potemkin Village from which the government of the Republic of Cuba is the sole beneficiary. Are the 20,000+ Republic of Cuba nationals who have registered their properties with Airbnb dimwitted? Are the owners of paladars (restaurants) engaging in fraud? All these people are stupid? 11.3 million victims of the Depleting Gene Pool Theory? That is insulting.
There are thousands of Republic of Cuba nationals who have, according to the Editorial Board of The Washington Times, taken the time and have not given up or given in despite obstacles, to shift from being a one-person operation to employing five, ten, twenty, or one hundred employees to maintain and grow their business.. but these efforts are for nothing, they are wasted time.
Easy for the Editorial Board of The Washington Times to pontificate from the comfort of their well-appointed meeting room and disparage the courage, the fortitude, the brilliance of entrepreneurs in the Republic of Cuba who do not have high salaries, 401(k) plans, and the benefits that are derived from being employed by News World Communications. How many of those on the Editorial Board of The Washington Times have tried to create a business? Created a business? Managed a business?
The Editorial Board of The Washington Times infers that entrepreneurs in the Republic of Cuba as frauds- whether they know it or not; acknowledge it or not. That is vulgar. Disrespectful.
Worse, the Editorial Board of The Washington Times infers entrepreneurs in the Republic of Cuba has stupid- dupes of their government and of themselves. Self-duped. Nice. So very nice.
The second accusation is equally appalling, but significantly not relevant to the license issued by the OFAC. The “almost certainly” violation of the Libertad Act is presumably referencing the following provision within the Libertad Act, although uncertain because the Editorial Board was not specific because generalities are so much more easily weaponized:
“SEC. 103. PROHIBITION AGAINST INDIRECT FINANCING OF CUBA. (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no loan, credit, or other financing may be extended knowingly by a United States national, a permanent resident alien, or a United States agency to any person for the purpose of financing transactions involving any confiscated property the claim to which is owned by a United States national as of the date of the enactment of this Act, except for financing by the United States national owning such claim for a transaction permitted under United States law.”
The Washington DC-based attorney, Robert L. Muse, who drafted the application for the OFAC license and drafted the Contingent Investment Contract is available to alleviate the Editorial Board’s confusion about the legal basis for the OFAC license’s equity investment and loan provisions and correct the Editorial Board’s misunderstanding of the Libertad Act provision inaccurately implied in relation to entrepreneurs in the Republic of Cuba. Why the Editorial Board did not reach out to Mr. Muse prior to publication of the editorial is obvious- the conversation would have invalidated the basis of the editorial message.
The Editorial Board of The Washington Times is sending up a flare, an SOS, for a concern that does not exist- and they know it does not exist. Interestingly, they did not contact the owner of the LLC to directly ask any questions. Why? Reporters from other publications did without difficulty.
The privately-owned company in the Republic of Cuba which will be the recipient of the direct equity investment and direct financing is as it has been described- privately owned. The service-focused company is not using an asset upon which there is a certified claim.
Rather than stage a written preemptive attack upon something new, the Editorial Board might have better served readers of The Washington Times if they had waited until the equity investment was delivered; the financing was delivered. Then, evaluate the operational impact of what the OFAC licensed and what the parties did with that OFAC license.
And, this time, members of the Editorial Board will reach out and contact the principals for information prior to launching an attack upon what they know so painfully little about.
