Since February 24, when Cuban MIG fighter jets shot down two planes piloted by members of a Cuban-American exile group, the American government and media have treated the relationship between the two countries very seriously. On March 2, the Clinton administration announced that it would tighten sanctions against Castro's regime. The press has focused on the technicalities of territorial airspace and profiled outraged exile leaders. However, the national uproar over this incident has been ideologically and historically circumscribed, leaving most Americans with a lopsided view of Cuban-American relations and American foreign policy.

When Madeleine K. Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, passionately decried Cuba's downing of the unarmed Cessna planes, most of the nation probably took her indignation at face value. However, if one considers America's long and bloody history of sponsoring brutal dictatorships and illegal invasions in the Caribbean and Latin America, her outrage seems ridiculous. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right--just because the United States trained, armed and directed death squads in countries such as Guatemala for half a century doesn't mean that it cannot criticize Cuba. But until the United States fully acknowledges and apologizes for its international crimes, Albright's outbursts will continue to seem preposterous. Albright appears even more ludicrous if one considers that the U.S. ignores Cuban sovereignty by maintaining its colonial military outpost on Cuban soil--the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

It is also interesting to ponder why the United States has become so vocal about violations of international law. Just a decade ago, anyone who spoke about the thousands of peasants, students, nuns and priests who were being massacred in E1 Salvador was branded a communist. The United States never called an emergency session of the United Nations when martyrs in E1 Salvador were tortured and killed.

Anyone who has barely even paid attention to the media coverage of the downing of the exiles' planes now is probably well versed in the finer points of international law. This detailed analysis seems particularly odd, for when the United States invaded Panama in 1989 (with over 23,000 troops), flagrantly violating the U.N. and the Organization of American States charters and numerous treaties, the press failed to subject our nation's actions to similar scrutiny.

The media continue to ignore the violent history of Cuban-American anti-Castro exile groups. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion was their largest operation, but by no means their only attempt to undermine Fidel Castro and his government. With the aid of the CIA, the exiles sabotaged Cuban industry (oil refineries, chemical plants, sugar mills etc.) and attempted to assassinate Castro. These exiles engaged in terrorism within the United States as well. Actions such as bombing the Cuban Mission to the U.N. and attacking Cuban diplomats led the FBI to brand one Cuban exile group "the most dangerous terrorist organization in the United States" in 1980. Their worst crime was probably committed outside of the U.S.; in 1976, a Cuban Airlines plane was blown up shortly after it took off from Barbados, killing 73 people, including the Cuban fencing team. These acts of terrorism are no secret; they were reported in major U.S. publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Brothers to the Rescue, the exile group whose planes were recently shot down, does not appear to be linked to prior violence. Yet, since they recently dropped leaflets over Havana urging revolution, their missions cannot really be considered merely civilian. To dramatize the seriousness of this action, would the U.S. allow Russian planes to drop handbills encouraging revolt over Washington, D.C.? Furthermore, the Cubans claim to have gained intelligence from a double agent who infiltrated Brothers to the Rescue that the group was planning acts of sabotage. In the full context of this situation, it is easy to see why Castro, who takes personal responsibility for the attack, would be a little quick on the trigger.

David W. Brown's column appears on alternate Wednesdays.