82. Telegram From the U.S. Interests Section in Cuba to the Department of State1

9316. Subj: (C) Cubans Complain of U.S. Violations of Hijacking Agreement.

1. (C—Entire text.)

2. Carlos Zamora, Acting Director North American Affairs, called USINT Chief to MINREX Oct 17. Zamora opened by stressing that on de facto basis Cuban side continued scrupulously to adhere to terms of Anti-Hijacking Agreement even though on de jure basis Cuba had allowed the agreement to lapse.2 One reason Cuba had done so, Zamora stated, was that U.S. side had in some cases not lived up to terms of agreement. Hijacking of boats was as serious as hijacking of planes, especially if it involved overpowering the crew, yet U.S. had never prosecuted or even charged Cubans thus arriving in U.S. for commission of an illegal act.

[Page 177]

3. Zamora said GOC wished call USG’s attention to this in view of new spate of incidents. Not only was U.S. not prosecuting boat hijackers, but VOA and other official entities seemed to have embarked on propaganda campaign to stimulate hijackings. Zamora said that if it is necessary to enter U.S. by small boat, that may have to do with fact that U.S. is chary with its entry visas. Cuba has issued departure documents to hundreds of Cuban citizens who have then been refused entry by the U.S.

4. Comment: Complaint was made in rather pro forma fashion. Cubans are obviously uncomfortable over increase in number of people leaving country by small boat, but are probably more irritated over “officially-sponsored propaganda campaign” than over fact U.S. not prosecuting “hijackers.” Latter point, however, is one they may throw back at us in future air hijacking cases.

5. Last point raised by Zamora has some validity. USINT is and has been forced to turn away many Cubans who have departure documents and wish to emigrate to U.S. INS usually refuses to give humanitarian parole, so that unless Cubans have some preference under quota conferred by close family members or through some other means, or unless they qualify for parole under prisoner program, there is little we can do for them. Word has gotten around that this is case. It may indeed have contributed to increase in boat cases.

6. Given possibility of embarrassment to USG—e.g., if one contrasted restrictive measures we now apply to Cubans to President Johnson’s 1965 assurance that any Cuban who sought freedom in U.S. would find a welcome3—USINT would recommend that VOA and other government-associated media treat this issue with great deal of caution.

7. Action Requested: Stealing small boat to get out of Cuba is one thing. Overpowering crew or otherwise endangering lives in process is another (though difference may not be accepted on Flagler Street).4 Our attitude toward latter should be governed by our anti-terrorist objectives. Would appreciate if Dept could examine this problem and provide USINT some indication of USG thinking on subject.

Smith
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790478–0227. Confidential; Priority.
  2. The Anti-Hijacking Agreement lapsed on April 15, 1977. See Document 1.
  3. See Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, vol. XXXII, Dominican Republic; Cuba, Haiti, Guyana, Document 308.
  4. A street in Miami.