1. Can you share with the SBI members some details about the organization of the
6th ALAI Congress of Immunology?
4. A partnership with the Travel Agency Havanatur S.A. has been established, so
as to provide delegates with exc...
are difficult, and the economics constraints large, but if Cuba, that has been blocked for
40 years as no other country ha...
Revolutionary Government, under the frame of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917,
which grants the power to prohibit fi...
under the general license category, which means they are legally authorized to engage in
travel-related transactions and d...
Finally, just let me finish reminding everybody that this is a Latin American
Immunology Congress, and if some scientists ...
of 6

Polêmica no congresso em Cuba

Published on: Mar 4, 2016
Published in: Travel      Technology      

Transcripts - Polêmica no congresso em Cuba

  • 1. 1. Can you share with the SBI members some details about the organization of the 6th ALAI Congress of Immunology? As you know, the Latin American Association of Immunology (ALAI) was founded in 1984 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and accepted as a Federation by the International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS) in 1987. The founding members of ALAI were Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, soon followed by Colombia and Venezuela in 1987, and Uruguay in 1989. Paraguay and Cuba became members in 1996. ALAI groups probably some 1,500 Latin American immunologists. ALAI is best known by its Triennial Latin American Immunology Congresses, which have been held in Buenos Aires, Argentina (1987 ), Sao Paulo, Brazil (1990 ), Santiago de Chile, Chile (1993), Zacatecas, Mexico (1996 ), and Punta del Este, Uruguay (1999). The 6th Latin American Congress of Immunology will have as host the city of Havana, capital of the Republic of Cuba, from December 9 to 13, 2002. The Organizing Committee of Havana ALAI 2002, as we have shortened the Congress’ name, has made a very serious effort to organize a meeting that could represent well ALAI’s main goal: “..to improve pre- and postgraduate education in immunology, and the regional collaboration in basic and applied research in human and veterinary immunology..”. Among the actions we have already taken for a successful ALAI Havana 2002 are: 1. A highly informative website has been made operative, where the different aspects of the Congress and of its venue are described, together with data about ALAI, and a special section covering interesting ALAI News. This is the first time ALAI has a website, with regularly up-dated information about our organization, and specially dealing with its next Congress. It is our goal to keep ALAI Havana 2002 as “electronic” as possible, within our website. The SBI members are invited to check http://alai.cigb.edu.cu and to send us their comments. 2. The Havana Convention Center (HCC) has been selected as the venue for the meeting. With its large experience in event organization, and excellent facilities, the HCC has agreed to provide its services and facilities with very low cost to ALAI, in exchange for the rights on the registration fees and on the outcome of the parallel Commercial Exhibit. Check our website and the link to the HCC site for more information. 3. Basic and Clinical Research in Immunotherapy (in its widest sense) has been defined as the MAIN SUBJECT for the meeting. Likewise, FOUR PRINCIPAL HEALTH PROBLEMS will de considered priority: Cancer, and Bacterial, Viral, and Parasite Infections. However, these subjects will not exclude the presentation and discussion of many other aspects (detailed in our website) in ALAI Havana 2002. The Scientific Program is now under conformation, and the input of Brazilian immunologists wishing to present their results will be particularly important in order to “arm” the different Symposia, Workshops, and Plenary Conferences.
  • 2. 4. A partnership with the Travel Agency Havanatur S.A. has been established, so as to provide delegates with excellent accommodation options, and with its associated agencies network worldwide for travel connections to Cuba. 5. At our request, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) has agreed to sponsor our Congress and consider it as one of the events to celebrate their 2002 Centennial. The PAHO Executive is studying our requests of funds for the attendance of young immunologists to the meeting, and for the delivery of a PAHO award for a LA immunologist. 6. Also at our request, the IUIS Council has agreed to develop its 2002 ordinary reunion in Havana, coincident with ALAI Havana 2002. This will enable us to have an additional number of prestigious immunologists attending and participating in our meeting. The new IUIS Council is formed by: Philippa Marrack (President, USA), Mohamed Daha (Secretary General, Holland), Fritz Melchers (Past-President, Switzerland), Anne Kelso (Past Secretary General, Australia), Josef Smolen (Treasurer, Austria), Rolf Zinkernagel (proposed Vice-President, Germany), and Members, Regional Representatives, and Associates: Rose Leke (Cameroon), Stanley Ress (South Africa), Lindsay Dent (Australia), Xian-hao Xu (China), Masayuki Miyasaka (Japan), Narinder Mehra (India), Stitaya Sirisinha (Thailand), Marianna Newkirk (Canada), Paul W. Kincade (USA), Ethel Garcia-Latorre (Mexico), Alberto Nieto (Uruguay), Martin Röllinghoff (Germany), Marilyn Moore (UK), Anders Orn (Sweden), Cornelius J. M. Melief (Holland), Marie Christine Bene (France), Jorge V. Gavilondo (Cuba), Sergio Romagnani (Italy), Jorge Kalil (Brazil), Malcom Turner (UK), Joan Lunney (USA), Rudolf Valenta (Austria), and Genevieve Milon (France). 7. Funds requests have been sent to several sources, as the TWAS, the UNESCO Regional Office, the Wellcome Foundation, different immunology societies, and many companies. While we have already established a cumulative fund for travel, registration, and/or accommodation of some invited speakers, with a substantial part of the discrete allowances that ALAI has received from the IUIS in the period 2000-2002, our wish is to substantially augment this fund so as to be able to cover some expenses of young immunologists, and to increase the number of invited speakers receiving some financial help. 8. The Latin American Biology Network (RELAB) accepted our request and will be sponsoring and promoting the meeting. Our aim is to have in ALAI Havana 2002 not less than 800 delegates from Latin America, Cuba, and the World. We have all the right conditions and facilities, a vigorous national scientific and biomedical movement, with Immunology as spear head, and the will to make a Congress that can show the World, and specially IUIS, that we in Latin America can organize and carry out top-of-the-line international scientific reunions. But in this endeavor the support and participation of Latin Americans as delegates and speakers is essential. I would personally like the meeting to be first “Latin American”, and only then be further classified as “International”. It is true that the times
  • 3. are difficult, and the economics constraints large, but if Cuba, that has been blocked for 40 years as no other country has been in history, can provide the adequate organization platform and scientific environment for a meeting as important as this, then I would expect that our colleagues from Brazil and other ALAI countries, will do their best to support us with their presence. The SBI is the largest immunology society of ALAI, and Brazil the South American giant. I am sure we will have your help in organizing a large Brazilian delegation to ALAI Havana 2002, in terms of speakers, delegates, and young immunologists and students. Your effort in identifying funding sources to cover your full attendance to the meeting is extremely important. Your help in contacting Brazilians living in Europe and the United States, willing as always to share their knowledge and resources with the motherland, is another important task for the SBI (as it is for all the other ALAI societies). 2. We have learned that the American Society of Immunologists (AAI) has decided not to appear as a sponsor of ALAI Havana 2002. Can you comment on this? Following the mandate of the ALAI General Assembly held in Punta del Este, of promoting the attendance of US immunologists to our 6th Congress, I officially asked in June this year the AAI for four things: (a) the possibility of including their society in the sponsors list, (b) their help in the identification of USA immunologists that could be speakers in some special sessions of the event, (c) the diffusion of our conference through their website, and (d) the coverage of travel expenses of at least 10 USA immunologists to the ALAI Havava 2002 Congress. In a response letter dated November 29, the AAI has indicated to us that: “…after consultation with our attorneys, we have concluded that the U.S. sanctions law against Cuba would likely bar AAI from sponsoring or otherwise participating in the conference and have decided not (bold and underlining is theirs) to seek U.S. government permission to become a sponsor (or to otherwise assist in organizing the conference, including identifying speakers). We certainly appreciate the invitation and do intend to seek U.S. government permission for Dr. Paul Kincade, AAI’s representative to the International Union of Immunology Societies (IUIS), to attend the conference…” It is nothing new that the relationships between the Cuban and USA governments have been strained over the last 4 decades, due to what many consider a short sighted policy of successive White House administrations. Because such policy has much to do with the response of AAI, I would like to use some time of the SBI members to check on some facts. For the sake of simplicity and I will use several paragraphs from what has been published in the web by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in its Right to Travel Initiative (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt), spiced with some personal comments (in italics) and minor editing: ------------------ “…..Citing national security concerns, the U.S. government imposed an economic embargo on Cuba in 1961 (that we call blockade), and restrictions on travel of US citizens to Cuba, in response to the nationalization of U.S. companies by the
  • 4. Revolutionary Government, under the frame of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which grants the power to prohibit financial transactions in time of war. While many other countries left the compensation negotiations with Cuba to the affected companies, the U.S. administration decided to take the matter in its hands, by compensating the nationalized U.S. companies, and assuming directly the responsibility of responding to the measures taken. In July 1963, the U.S. Treasury Department released the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, which codify the essential elements of the economic embargo against Cuba. Such elements include a freeze of all Cuban-owned assets in the U.S., a prohibition on all non-licensed financial and commercial transactions between Cuba and the United States and between Cuban and U.S. nationals. The financial prohibition includes the spending of money by U.S. citizens for travel to Cuba, which essentially created a travel ban on the island for all non-licensed U.S. citizens. The embargo regulations have been eased and tightened several times over its forty-year history. In 1977, the Carter Administration removed all restrictions on travel to Cuba. However, the Reagan Administration reinstated an even stricter travel ban in 1982 and travel restrictions on most U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba continue to this day. In October 1992, President George Bush signed the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA). The CDA was a major effort to further isolate the region during a critical economic downturn after the fall of the Soviet Union (a period referred to in Cuba as the "special period"). The Act prohibited foreign-based subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba. The CDA is important in relation to the travel ban because it grants the Treasury Department for the first time the authority to level civil fines up to $50,000 on individuals who violate the embargo. In March 1996, the Cuba Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (also called the "Helms-Burton Act" after the bill's sponsors) became law. The law was passed shortly after Cuba shot down two small planes flown by the U.S.-based Cuban exile group, Brothers to the Rescue. The Helms-Burton Act was designed to further impede economic recovery of the Cuban government by increasing the pressure on foreign investors on the island. As a response, Cuba opened the island to foreign investment, especially in the tourist industry. One of the most controversial measures in the Helms-Burton Act is Title III, which allows foreign companies to be taken to US courts if they are found to be doing business on nationalized property formerly held by US citizens. The Act requires the U.S. President to either waive or enforce this provision every six months. To this day, both Presidents Clinton and Bush have exercised the waiver and the provision has not been put into effect. The next scheduled waiver will be in January 2002. The Helms-Burton Act also affects travel restrictions by codifying the existing Cuban Asset Control Regulations. Travel restrictions are normally imposed by Executive authority. The Act changed this by requiring that any changes to the regulations would now require an act of Congress. On January 5 1999, President Clinton announced that the U.S. was taking additional steps to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. Among the initiatives the President announced were an expansion of people-to-people contact through two-way exchanges among academics and scientists and streamlining the approval process for their visits. As a result, most scientists and researchers now fall
  • 5. under the general license category, which means they are legally authorized to engage in travel-related transactions and do not need to apply for an OFAC license (my underlining). In May 1999, the Treasury Department issued updated regulations in accordance with President Clinton's announcement that made traveling to Cuba easier for those previously eligible for licenses, such as scientists and researchers, and opened up a few new categories for legal travel. On 26 July 2001, the Treasury Department issued the newest regulations. These most recent regulations leave many of the provisions allowing freedom of travel for scientists and researchers largely untouched (my underlining). The provisions of the regulations that are most relevant to scientists and researchers can be checked in detail in: http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#intro ---------------------- So, what’s the bottom line here? Our event is academic and international, sponsored by prestigious international organizations, open to scientists from any country, will have free worldwide diffusion, and has nothing to do with commerce, tourism, or biotechnology. With such conditions as a principle, it seems clear that US immunologists can apply for a license to the OFAC or could even travel under the general license category, without even contacting the OFAC (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/assistance.htm). US academicians may feel under a freedom status that government employees or company scientists don’t, but application for a license to attend the meeting is a right. This right is extensive to Scientific Societies, Companies, and Universities, which can also ask for group licenses (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/assistance.htm). In April this year, a substantial number of US chemists attended an International Meeting organized in Havana by the Cuban Chemical Society. They were largely supported and backed by the American Chemistry Society, which took in its hands the task of ensuring their legal participation in the Congress by directly contacting OFAC and others. At the end, the response of OFAC to a license application is always a case-by- case situation, and can be tinted by the political “environment”, but this should not prevent US immunologists to try to attend ALAI Havana 2002, and in my belief, the AAI to try to sponsor our regional meeting. Returning to your original question, my only concerns about the AAI decision in this case, which I fully respect as a sovereign one, are the “case closed” tone and “lawyer-like” language prevalent in their response. I would have imagined the AAI, as scientists, even in view of the recommendations of their attorneys, would have left nevertheless a door open for the rapidly evolving future, and in a more simple language, tell us that things were complicated at the moment (moreover since the tragic events of September 11), and that the request for sponsorship could be re-discussed in the future. This same friendlier, colleague-like tone could have been used to ask us, in the same letter, to erase from the Regional and International Advisory Board the names of any person somehow linked with the AAI. So, what will we do now? Well, we will seek collaboration from other US, North American and European scientific and immunological societies, AND will ALWAYS remain open to our AAI colleagues. We will also continue to illustrate US interested scientists about their rights to travel to scientific meetings in Cuba, and provide them with help through the AAAS and other institutions committed to support and stimulate the free exchange of science and culture.
  • 6. Finally, just let me finish reminding everybody that this is a Latin American Immunology Congress, and if some scientists from other places of the World do not feel encouraged to travel to Cuba, which is totally open to receive them, or are imposed unjust travel restrictions by their governments, we will still have a lot to show and discuss in Havana ALAI 2002, surely enough to enlighten many future experimental years.

Related Documents