Cuba Culture

No evidence Cuba working on bioweapons - with commentary

Posted October 23, 2004 by publisher in Cuba Culture.

BY NANCY SAN MARTIN | .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Biotechnology experts who recently visited various facilities in Cuba said Thursday that while the communist nation has sophisticated technology there is no evidence to support claims it is working on bioweapons.

‘‘We can’t give Cuba a clean bill of health, but we have no evidence to support these allegations,’’ said Jonathan Tucker, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Nonproliferation Studies, an independent group working to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

‘‘They have the capability, but so do we,’’ he told a conference focused on whether Cuba should be kept on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Cuba’s capability to produce bioweapons has long been a source of speculation.

But serious concerns were raised in 2002 when top Bush administration officials warned that Havana possessed “at least a limited, developmental, biological weapons research and development effort.’‘

That assessment stemmed from a classified 1999 report compiled by the CIA and its analytical arm, the National Intelligence Council. Cuba has denied the allegation.

And a recent U.S. intelligence revision of Cuba’s capability reportedly states that the U.S. intelligence community has ‘‘lost some confidence’’ in the 1999 assessment.

The revision was part of a so-called world-wide ‘‘scrub’’ of intelligence on biological weapons capabilities in the wake of the failure to find any of the weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be a key justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Tucker said the Oct. 3-7 visit to four facilities in Cuba showed the military installations were producing items such as cartilage capsules for vitamin supplements and vaccines to combat life-threatening diseases such as Hepatitis B.

Member Comments

On October 23, 2004, publisher wrote:

Appears to be as many bioweapons in Cuba as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Is Cuba next on the George Bush world tour?

On October 24, 2004, LPUIG73 wrote:

As of Oct. 2004, Cuba is a terminally ill patient, slowly being crushed to death under the oppressive weight of its dictator’ mandates and the general mismanagement by the Communist regime. No radical US intervention is required here.. 

On October 24, 2004, Jesus Perez wrote:

“No radical intervention is required here” states the comment. This assumes our right to radically intervene wherever we choose to in order to promote our ideology. Great view of world affairs! no wonder we are so popular .

On October 24, 2004, LPUIG73 wrote:

My statement doesn’t assume anything. I don’t assume anything. And to hell with your notion of popularity. I was talking about Cuba. If you wanna talk about the US, even if it has to drag by hairs the rest of the reluctant world towards achieving great objectives of world peace, freedom from tyranny and terrorism, the US will remain popular as long as it holds strong to its convictions.

On October 25, 2004, Jesus Perez wrote:

This is not about popularity my friend, it is about ideas and policies that are reasonable and fair. Cuba can handle itself and has for the last 45 years. Your proposal to drag the world by its hair does not sound to me like anything that is going to work in this century. We want to be respected not feared, fear breathes hatred and hatred breathes violence. Sure there are a lot of things that need to change for the better in Cuba, but obviously terrorizing its people with an embargo that has proven to be a failure, is not going to bring about any positive change.

On October 26, 2004, LPUIG73 wrote:

If the embargo is such a failure, why is Fidel begging from his knees like a fool for it to be lifted? If it is a failed embargo, what difference then does it make to Fidel if it is or isn’t in effect against his regime? Canada has no embargo against Cuba - China has no embargo against Cuba - Mexico and Venezuela have no embargo either and neither does the rest of the world… It’ only the US. So what difference does it make? You say it’ a failure. Castro has only been complain about the embargo since about 1989-1990 and hardly ever before..How long has the US had an embargo against Castro? Answer the question. hehe…

And you want ‘fair?’ Okay. ‘Fair’ would be if Castro would offer compensation to the US corporations from which he stole back in 1960. That’ ‘fair,’ to use your terminology. Fair would also include Castro’ Revolutionary government compensating the Cubans who lost property and businesses from his nationalizations back in the early 1960’. Compensating the families of thousands who he sentenced to jail or death. That also would be ‘fair.’ If you disagree that the above would be ‘fair,’ then we need to agree on a new definition for the term ‘fair.’

Fidel does enough terrorizing of his own—against his own people and has for decades against others around the world also—this is his undisputed legacy, history, and reputation dating back to his more glorious, younger ‘revolutionary’ days when he’d brag about wanting to ’pread world revolution’ rather than his weak and childish cries of today ‘please lift the embargo,’ pathetically pleading from his knees, lie a beggar..

You can believe the lies about the US embargo being the reason Cuba is in despair today, or you can believe the reality—that Castro’ economic system, Cuba’ system since 1960, and the course and alliances he has choosen since being in power, did not and do not work—never have, never will. It’ not the US embargo that’ the problem—it’ Castro and the Communist’ failed system that is Cuba’ problem.

On October 26, 2004, Jesus Perez wrote:

The real reason for all the hostility the U.S. has demostrated against Cuba is that Fidel has NEVER been on his knees begging for anything, but that is not something that I would expect you to understand. As far as the embargo is concerned, let’ see how many nations vote to support it in the upcoming vote at the U.N., but then again, I would not expect you to understand that either.