Part II: time for Washington to give Gitmo back to Cuba.

Cuba is no longer a security threat to the United States. Therefore, there is little need to maintain a military base for which U.S. taxpayers have already spent tens of millions of dollars yearly, yet which serves no defensible strategic purpose other than guaranteeing a continuing U.S. presence that is deeply frustrating to Cuban authorities.

Furthermore, the redeployment of Guantanamo personnel to some location in the continental U.S. could provide an important inflow of income to local suppliers surrounding the new facility.

A possible model for this occurred last September, when the 554th Electronic Systems Group out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base was tasked to supervise a $627.8 million contract awarded to Computer Sciences Corp., a California-based company.

The contract will help generate high-tech jobs as the company goes about configuring, installing and conducting training for the Expeditionary Combat Support System.

Another good reason for Gitmo's reversion back to Havana is that such an act would be viewed as an important gesture of goodwill and sound judgment stripped of any propaganda intent.

As it is, Gitmo is a daily reminder to Cubans that Washington continues to disrespect their country and their government. Returning the base to the Cubans, as President Carter did with the reversion to Panama of the Canal, could markedly ease tensions between the two governments and lead to an advance in constructive engagement and the orderly assessment of a long list of disruptive issues.

Fidel Castro has referred to Guantanamo in recurrent and often passionate speeches throughout the decades of his rule, describing the base as "a dagger plunged into the Cuban soil," and proclaiming that it "is there just to humiliate Cuba."

RESTORING INTERNATIONAL CREDIBILITY

During a recent one-day visit to Mexico (at a time when Fidel's health was on everyone's mind), U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez declared that "if we can be of help, we are ready to help in that transition [to democracy in a post-Fidel Cuba]."

But if Washington is as committed as it claims to be to aiding Cuba after the demise of Castroism, a good starting point would be to return Gitmo, allowing a Havana government to have full control of all of its national territory for the first time in almost a century.

Such an act would be interpreted as a manifestation of goodwill notwithstanding who would be occupying the White House or in charge of Havana.

A final positive effect of Guantanamo's reversion would be that Washington would be able to rebuild its international credibility concerning hemispheric issues. Critics charge that while the U.S. denounces torture, insisting on the defendants' right to a fair trial in the abstract, it has systematically violated its own declarations with its persistently shadowy use of the detention facility for extra-constitutional procedures. These types of contradictions have done grave damage to American credibility abroad.

BASE CLOSINGS SHOULD INCLUDE GITMO

The closing down of what essentially is one more redundant U.S. base through a proceeding of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) should be a decision not influenced by radical right-wing Republican political operatives like Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, but one which is determined by the facts on the ground.

Cuba should have long ago regained control of a territory that has generated global outrage because of its use as a center for torture and psychological warfare under the supervision of U.S. military personnel as well as intelligence agents. Its closure and prompt reversion could not come at a better time.

Any kind of redeployment of troops or base closing must be approved by BRAC. This commission is charged with coming up with recommendations on how the deployment of this country's military forces should be reshaped in terms of infrastructure and organizational charts.

According to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service, the four previous BRAC rounds--in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995--resulted in 97 major closures, as well as 55 major realignments of U.S. military facilities.

The current 2005 recommendations, according to Miles, represent the most aggressive recommendations ever proposed by BRAC, which will affect more than 800 installations and which features plans to move thousands of U.S. military personnel currently serving overseas to stateside facilities.

It is certain that the subject of Gitmo was never brought up during these discussions due to the absolute veto almost certainly to be exercised by Miami's Cuban-American leadership as a result of such a move.

DETAINING TERRORISTS ON 'FOREIGN SOIL'

The reasons why Guantanamo was chosen to serve as a detention center in the U.S. war on terrorism represent a bizarre set of legal issues and the political framework that surrounds them. Washington could have avoided such complications if it had sent the suspected terrorists held at Gitmo to any other U.S. base abroad, like for example in Germany.

But such a move could have angered the local authorities, to the extent of even alienating an important U.S. ally.

In Guantanamo's case, Washington does not care if it angers the Castro regime or not. As Gardner explains, the U.S. interpretation is that "Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty of the land on which the base sits, according to the lease, but the U.S. also has complete jurisdiction and control. In effect, that means the American military is in charge of Guantanamo just as it is at Fort Bragg or any base in the United States. But at the same time, Gitmo remains foreign soil."

Lawyers for the suspects traditionally have argued that Havana's sovereignty simply does not exist on a day-to-day basis but only as a residual, largely theoretical factor. Therefore, American courts should be prepared to disregard Washington's arguments.

In response to such a claim, the White House has insisted on a strict and literal reading of the lease, which states that Cuba is sovereign, so U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over any foreigners housed at the facility.

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that suspects held at Gitmo could petition for a judicial review of their cases, to which Washington responded by staging a series of military trials that were widely interpreted at the time as being severely bias.

In a related action, the Military Commissions Act, signed by President Bush last October, essentially denied the prisoners their right to habeas corpus. Will Sullivan of U.S. News & World Report reported that "when [Republican] Sen. Arlen Specter offered an amendment to the Military Commissions Act [in 2006 that would restore habeas corpus], it fell just three votes short of adoption. A batch of new Democrats would seemingly give the bill strong odds of passing, but Congress might have a hard time mustering the votes to overcome a possible presidential veto."

As the world continues to wait for the latest news concerning the status of Castro's health, the nature of a post-Fidel Cuba is being debated and plans are being hurriedly prepared.

As to how to constructively respond to the all-but-certain Raul Castro takeover of the island, Washington might want to use its de facto control over Guantanamo as a gesture for advancing good will or, at least, as a bargaining chip.

LOOKING TOWARDS THE 2008 ELECTIONS

In the event of an electoral victory by the Democrats in 2008, there is likely to be a campaign component stressing the beginnings of a new inter-American relationship, which could consider returning Guantanamo to its rightful owners.

Such an act would be demonstrative of a more cooperative and goal-oriented Washington bilateral policy rather than the ideologically driven orientation that has been common place for decades. Such a template for a new generation of policy with constructive engagement at its core is essential to facilitating even minimal dialogue between the two countries in the future.

Reversion would be just the kind of gesture needed for both governments to demonstrate that they are capable of turning their energies to bilateral talks to each other as part of a "new beginning" campaign.

Just as Washington is arranging to do now with North Korea--and is willing to do with Iran--there should also be a Havana-Washington dialogue, with Guantanamo being thrown into the pot as a sweetener.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, nonprofit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research organization. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of CubaNews or its publisher. Details: COHA, Washington. Tel: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. Email: [e-mail].

Larry Birns is COHA's executive director. Part I of this article appeared in last month's issue of CubaNews.