As the world watched Iraqis celebrating their liberation from an especially vicious tyrant last week, another tyrant took the opportunity to culminate a brutal crackdown on dissidents. The recent wave of suppression carried out by Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba has led to the arrest of some 75 individuals, among them journalists, human rights activists and economists. They have been given, on average, 20-year prison sentences. Secretary of State Colin Powell calls it “the most significant act of political repression in decades.”

This story hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention—understandable, though, given the momentous events taking place in the Middle East. Still, it has sparked a renewed discussion among lawmakers over America’s Cuba policy. All are repulsed at Havana’s latest crackdown. Even Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., a longtime proponent of engagement with Castro, said the sweeping arrests “call into question the very legitimacy of the Cuban state.”

But the moral case against Castro has long been closed. The reason his regime should now be in the spotlight is not only for its human rights abuses, but also for its questionable stance on terrorism. In light of America’s ongoing war, it’s time to get serious with the Cuban leader.

Consider the following:

•During a May 2001 speech at Tehran University, Castro compared the United States to the late Shah of Iran, who was deposed in the 1979 revolution. America is an “imperialist king,” he said, but one that “will finally fall, just as your king was overthrown.” To that end, Castro proclaimed: “The people and the governments of Cuba and Iran can bring the United States to its knees.”

•In October 2001, Castro denounced the U.S.-led war on terror as “worse than the original attacks, militaristic, and fascist.”

•Last fall, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fisk charged that Cuba had deliberately provided erroneous information to those investigating the attacks of Sept. 11.

•One Bush administration official has said that the Cuban regime possesses “at least a limited offensive biological warfare capability.”

•Cuba is one of only seven countries in the world that the State Department lists as being involved in “state-sponsored terrorism.” (The other six are Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea and, soon to be removed, Iraq).

•Irving Louis Horowitz—renowned sociologist, co-editor of the book Cuban Communism and a veritable expert on Cuban affairs—wrote in the Spring 2002 issue of the National Interest: “Training and arming Palestinians from the PLO forces is ongoing” in Cuba.

•A May 2002 State Department report documented that during the previous year, “The Cuban Government continued to allow at least 20 Basque ETA members to reside in Cuba as privileged guests and provided some degree of safe haven and support to members of the Colombian FARC and ELN groups.”

•The same report also noted: “In August [2001], a Cuban spokesman revealed that Sinn Fein’s official representative for Cuba and Latin America, Niall Connolly, who was one of three Irish Republican Army members arrested in Colombia on suspicion of providing explosives training to the FARC, had been based in Cuba for five years.” Connolly had been on the payroll of the island’s Communist party.

•Otto Reich, U.S. special envoy to Latin America, has affirmed that “Castro has supported terrorist groups in every country in this hemisphere.”

The question confronting American policy makers, of course, is the same one that has confronted them since 1959: How should the United States respond? Those calling for an end to U.S. sanctions include a diverse mix of senators, congressional representatives, business lobbyists and journalists—and not just political liberals, either. Indeed, no less a conservative stalwart than the Wall Street Journal editorial page has advocated lifting the embargo.

Yet at this stage, such an approach would be misguided. As Fred Barnes pointed out in the Weekly Standard last summer, the only times Castro’s made real concessions on emigration and liberalization in the past 44 years have been when a mixture of domestic economic turmoil and American pressure forced him to. The 1965 arrangement for Cuban Americans to rescue their family members on a designated beach, the Mariel boatlift of 1980, the (admittedly minimal) free-market reforms of the 1990’s—the catalyst for all these actions was the U.S., not the regime in Havana. Historically, America has not gotten concessions from Castro by making concessions itself; it has done so by squeezing the Cuban leader diplomatically and refusing to budge on the embargo.

That’s precisely the tactic the Bush administration should take today. The president has said that there is no middle ground in the war on terror. The tyranny of Castro’s regime is reprehensible; but its complicity in terrorism is simply unacceptable. Bush should seize this moment to marry America’s moral imperative in Cuba with its strategic one. Now is not the time to ease sanctions and prop up a desperate government; now is the time for increased pressure. A carrot-and-stick policy is fine—so long as the stick is real and unequivocal.

Ultimately, if we can take any solace in Havana’s recent clampdown, it’s this: Castro has shown he’s worried. He’s worried about the increasing challenge posed by the island’s dissident groups. He’s worried about his nation’s dire economic situation. He’s worried about having to reform and liberalize in order to stay in power. In the long run, he should also be worried that the full diplomatic force of the Bush Doctrine may eventually come to Cuba.

Duncan M. Currie ’04 is a history concentrator in Leverrett House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.