Ah, Juan Miguel, I hope so too. But it's not looking good just at the moment.

If you look at the legislation on Cuba that's before Congress at the moment, on the surface it seems like progress. It would liberalize restrictions on the sale of some foodstuffs and medical supplies to Cuba --seemingly a humanitarian move.

But look a little more closely, and you see two big catches. The first is that, while the new law would allow such sales to happen, it also just about prevents them. Cuba is a very poor country, and there's no way it could pay for these things without some form of credit. And what does the legislation forbid?

Why, access to credit, of course. It even forbids Cuba from bartering to obtain these things.

The bill also relaxes restrictions on four other countries: Iran, Sudan, Libya and North Korea. But all these countries are allowed to get private financing and export their products to the United States. Cuba alone is forbidden to do these things.

The other catch, for Americans, is even more bothersome. Up to now, the ban on tourism to Cuba by American citizens has merely taken the form of a regulation. This new legislation would write that ban into law.

As it stands now, if you or I wanted to travel to Cuba to see for ourselves what life is like under Fidel, we'd have a somewhat complicated time of it, but it could be done. We could fly first to a country like Mexico or Canada or Jamaica and from there it wouldn't be too hard to make our way to Havana. The United States government wouldn't like it much but they also wouldn't make a big deal out of it.

Under this legislation, that activity would become criminal. That's unacceptable.

A least one senator has the courage to take an unequivocal stand.

Connecticut's Christopher Dodd, properly calling it "a giant step backward," has threatened to filibuster the legislation if it gets to a vote on the Senate floor.

President Clinton is waffling. Asked Thursday about the legislation, he pointed to Madeleine Albright's efforts to increase people-to-people contact and said he still had to evaluate the bill. He did, at least, say he thought the restrictions on personal contact were a mistake.

That, so far as I can figure, is a gross understatement. Here we are trying to deal with a so-called totalitarian regime by imposing restrictions on the actions of U.S. citizens that look awfully totalitarian to me. If I want to go to Cuba and make up my own mind about what's going on there, this new legislation would make me a criminal. Just who is afraid of whom, I can't help wondering.

Now that it seems even the scary North Koreans are coming in from the cold, we are keeping just one last corner of the Cold War deep freeze for Cuba.

While some highly vocal members of the Cuban-American community and their representatives in Congress have succeeded in keeping the ice from thawing, they are losing influence. As the Elian drama, dragged on, it became increasingly clear that most Americans put human concerns before ideology and just wanted the little boy to be allowed to go home.

That practical spirit will inevitably have to prevail in our relationship with Cuba. Freezing out this little island neighbor while opening the doors to the likes of Libya and North Korea will look more ridiculous with each passing year.

The problem now is a short-term one. Clearly the president is trying not to rile the anti-Castro forces in Florida too badly and lose the state for Al Gore in November. Once again, this weird little corner of domestic politics is trumping common sense -- and possibly Americans' freedom to travel where they wish. That's not democracy.

Susanna Rodell can be reached by e-mail at surodell@aol.com

© Copyright 2000, The News & Observer

###