U.S.-CUBAN RELATIONS

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The report (Crimson, April 22) of a long conversation on US-Cuban relations I had with one of your reporters was so telescoped that I was quoted as saying almost precisely the opposite of what I recall saying.

I had tried to explain that the US government had already made a non-trivial, indeed perhaps historic, change in its Cuban policy by allowing GM, Ford and Chrysler subsidiaries in Argentina to sell cars and trucks to Cuba. This is quite a departure from US policy of the last decade and a half. I also indicated how it may be possible to use the informal structures of the inter-American system to reincorporate Cuba in at least some international discussions in the hemisphere. Thirdly, I commented that Kissinger's speech--as reported in the newspapers (I have not yet seen the text)--seemed to me unrelated to US-Cuban relations. As your reporter noted correctly, the only juicy quotation from Kissinger's speech seemed designed to put himself on record against a Latin American organization similar to OPEC. Fourth, I noted that the more formal aspects of change in US-Cuban relations may be more distant, for several reasons. For example, Cuba does not want to re-join the OAS if it means re-adherence to many of the aspects of the organization it does not like. There is also probably, at least, a substantial Latin American minority, and perhaps a plurality, opposed to Cuba's formal re-incorporation. Reincorporation, if it were to occur, would have to be worked out so that it would be separate from participation in inter-American defense activities. And, lastly, I noted that Nixon may prefer to keep faith with conservatives in the U S by holding back on such a formal recognition that the cold war is dead in the hemisphere, so long as he needs 34 senators on his side. Unfortunately, your reporter turned this last statement into the theme of our conversation. The main theme is that change has already occurred in the Nixon's administration policy toward Cuba; speculation about future formalisms should not obscure the main point. Jorge I. Dominguez   Assistant Professor of Government