It appears that the Department of State may be considering removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The immediate impact of this will be howls of outrage from the rabid Babalú crowd and other die-hard supporter of Cuba sanctions. Of course, of more interest to the readership of this blog will be the practical impact of such a removal, if it occurs, on exports to Cuba.

If you think that the removal of Cuba from the list will permit unlicensed exports of food, medicine and agricultural goods to Cuba, think again. Although section 7205 of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”) does indeed impose a license requirement on shipments of these goods to state sponsors of terrorism, it also directly imposes that restriction on TSRA exports to Cuba. So a license will still be required even if Cuba is removed from the list.

Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act prohibits granting licenses for the export of items on the United States Munitions List to state supporters of terrorism. So there is a theoretical possibility, I suppose, that if Cuba is removed from the list, the arms embargo against Cuba might also be lifted. Right. When pigs fly.

Then we have Section 6(j) of the now-defunct Export Administration Act as allegedly extended in force by various executive orders.  That provision requires that certain licenses for exports of goods on the Commerce Control List to state sponsors of terrorism be notified to Congress. Since licenses for CCL items are rarely granted in any event for Cuba, and seem unlikely to be granted even if Cuba is removed from the list, this doesn’t seem to an area in which Cuba’s removal would have much impact.

In sum, removal of Cuba from the list seems largely symbolic and with little practical effect. At most, it could presage a liberalization of the embargo down the road, particularly if the current Cuban government gnaws on this bone a little rather than simply regarding it with disdain.

As reliable as the appearance of fall foliage and jack-o-lanterns,  another fall ritual took place earlier this afternoon in New York City. The United Nations voted, yet again, to condemn the U.S. ban on exports to Cuba, as it has reliably done for the past 21 years. This year the vote was 188-3 against the embargo; last year it was 186-2. The countries voting against this year were the United States (duh!), Israel and Palau. Last year Palau chose to abstain, but as the former U.S. possession appears set to elect a new President, perhaps they thought it wise to curry a little U.S. favor.

Ronald Godard spoke before the Assembly on behalf of the United States defending the embargo, and he did so with a curious argument. Rebutting Cuban claims that the sanctions caused economic injury to Cuba, Godard blamed the island’s financial woes on the “economic policies that Cuban government has pursued for the past half century.” But wait, if the sanctions aren’t having any financial impact on Cuba, what exactly is our purpose for imposing them? We can’t take Cuba’s cake and have them eat it too.

If for some reason or other you were thinking that perhaps the next time you were in Dunhill’s in Paris or London you might just slip a few Cubans into your briefcase and bring them back to the U.S., think again, particularly if you’re a lawyer and want to stay that way. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee just recommended the disbarment of an Illinois attorney because, among other things, he was convicted of violating the Trading with the Enemy Act in connection with boxes of Cuban cigars that he brought with him into the United States.

Now, admittedly, Richard S. Connors, the attorney in question, did just a teensy bit more than stuff a few Cohibas in his blazer jacket and try to slip them past Customs. According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld his criminal conviction, Connors was caught with 46 boxes of cigars in four suitcases in his automobile’s trunk while crossing the Canadian border and apparently more were carried back when returning from approximately 30 other trips to Cuba. Connors was also convicted of filing a false passport when, after Customs yanked his passport in connection with the cigar smuggling, he applied for a new one, stating only that his previous passport was missing. The Illinois Committee also noted that Connors had been previously suspended for misappropriation of client funds and had still not reimbursed those funds.

But the story gets better (or worse, I suppose, if you are Mr. Connors). The feds were tipped off to his Cuban cigar shenanigans by his wife during a messy divorce proceeding. In fact, according to Connors in his unsuccessful appeal, she “reconciled” with him only to get into his house to get information to turn over to federal investigators, something Connors claimed, without success, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Oh, and about that house, the feds seized it because he kept the cigars there and used the proceeds from the sales of his cigars to pay his mortgage.

One other interesting tidbit: the Communist regime in Cuba was not toppled upon the end of Mr. Connor’s cigar business. Fidel and Raúl are doing fine; Mr. Connors, not so much.