Significant global legal and technology changes are happening currently. In the case of Cuba it could mean opening trade doors between the U.S. and Cuba that have been welded shut for the last 40 years. Even possessing a famous Cuban cigar is illegal in the United States, while cigars in general are legal.

The U.S. Congress is finally listening to the screams of their constituents-and are in the process of amending decades old sanctions laws against Cuba -the sleeping Caribbean colossus which lies a mere 90 miles off the American mainland. Major demands by American agriculture to legally sell their rice and food products to Cuba is causing even rock-hard conservative Republican leaders to morph from diehard opponents-to-eager sponsors almost overnight. This breach of the Cuban version of the Berlin Wall will most likely be the battering ram that opens the doors wide to further U.S. investment into Cuba. It could also end up opening up trade between the U.S. and North Korea, Iran, and Libya as fresh political winds suddenly are beginning to stir during this key U.S. Presidential election year. Such 21st century politics could have a ripple effect worldwide.

After four decades why is Congress seriously considering changing the law to allow legal trade with Cuba? Since the U.S. has long traded with Communist controlled China--and before that, the Communist controlled Soviet Union. In the mid 90's it opened trade with communist controlled Vietnam--then 'why not trade with Cuba' seems to be the real question. For years Europe, Central and South America, and Asian countries have done business with Cuba, investing in modern tourist hotels that try to recapture the aura of Ernest Hemingway's Cuba and other ventures-while the U.S. has clung to its isolationist strategy that was supposed to defeat Castro. Not doing business with Castro because he is a Communist made little sense when the U.S. was readily doing business with other Communist countries.

The American isolation strategy has failed for forty years and needs to be changed to fit modern reality. It could be said to be hypocritical to openly promote trading with Vietnam and China, Communist controlled government with whom the U.S. had two Asian Wars (Korea and Vietnam) while denying trade with Cuba because its Communist in which we sponsored a brief and unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion-small potatoes compared to the Vietnam and Korean conflicts.

American rice and grain farmers see Cuba as a large and vital market they need to stay afloat. Cubans can't grow enough on their own to satisfy the needs of its 11 million residents, 25% of whom are under the age of 15.

US farmers are not the only potential beneficiaries. Because Cubans still drive 1950's automobiles and have yet to be tempted by Internet computers, designer clothes and countless other capitalist delights offered by Europe, their Latin brothers/sisters and elsewhere, then Cuba could be the next global gold rush for businesses scrambling to be the ones who sell the adult 7 million Cubans new cars, Internet services, clothes, food, etc. It would allow Americans to invest in new profit making Cuban ventures (acquiring the largest stock of 1950's vintage American cars for resale into the US as collector's items would be one Cuban business worth investing in).

It won't happen overnight but if Congress removes the sanctions it could result in a flood of American business and lawyers very soon jumping on airplanes to Cuba, to join Europeans, Latin American and others already doing deals in Cuba. Those who are positioned early in Cuba could have an incredible advantage when Cuba eventually adopts the China/U.S. free market economy that has been proven by the U.S. and China to equally enrich capitalist and communist systems alike. Such a change would enrich the Cuban people like it has the ordinary men and women of China who care more about making money and travel than dull party meetings and tired dogma.

Unlike the Cuba sanction policy, the U.S. policy with China, starting with Nixon, was based on the belief that if we end their isolation and engage them in business we will know each other better -- and besides profiting from the trade we could resolve our political differences more easily because of those relationships that are established over time. In fact this has been proven in the years since Nixon opened our trade and contacts with China. Such a policy has created a sea change in China. Construction is booming across the country on new projects and starting with a lady who made her first million selling eggs, there are now over a million millionaires in China. This policy has lead to US/China student interchange and now elections are being held at local levels in China, all stemming from this policy of trade contact with the U.S. and European trade partners.

When I first went to China in 1982 everyone wore blue and made $30/month, like in Cuba. Now I know Chinese global entrepreneurs who shuttle between continents as routinely as people commute to work-importing gems and countless other products. They act like Americans and Europeans and think like entrepreneurs, not like communist party officials. The same could happen to the people of Cuba, if we trade with them.

If the US Congress abolishes the Cuban trade sanctions law, further contact between the U.S. and Cubans will lead to changes for the better in Cuba-including improved diets for the 25% of Cubans 15 or under who have no idea what lies just 90 miles beyond their shores. Why should they be denied access to adequate food because we don't like their leader? Would it make sense for China not to trade with the U.S. because they don't like our leaders-who are always asking for more Chinese reforms, etc.? No.

By letting American farmers and entrepreneurs join the rest of the world in selling Cuba the food and other goods that we take for granted, the U.S. can dismantle an outdated law and discard a failed policy of hypocrisy. By tearing tear down one of the last Berlin Walls still remaining in this world, Congress has a chance to build bridges to our isolated Cuban neighbors instead of burning them.

"Start-ups need a global strategy from the outset in order to win" in the current global technology race, according to separate articles in the June 2000 edition of Red Herring, the technology magazine, and the May 2000 issue of Business2.Com. Why? Look at the compelling numbers:

Today, nearly 50% of all Internet traffic comes from foreign (non-U.S.) domain accounts. Over 42% of the online population is non-English speakers. The European online population will exceed the U.S. online population by 2003. By 2005, U.S. users will represent only 30% of the world's online community, according to research consultancy IDC and reported in the June 2000 Red Herring article by J. Fonstad.

The CEO of the U.S. online auction giant, Ebay, Meg Whitman said at a recent world conference that her one regret was not moving into new markets worldwide quickly enough. Now Ebay deal with formidable, established auction players in each major market around the globe. Today, emerging start-ups must get global fast. If not, they will find themselves in a situation like ebay, and lose dominance quickly since the U.S. market will shortly comprise only 1/3 of the total world market. If this trend continues the next few years the American technology companies, instead of being the Global 500 giants, will instead be the small regional acquisition targets by the emerging 21st Century technology consortiums being formed all over the world. If American firms do not move faster, or know how to play a global strategic game with other giants being formed in Europe, Asia, Israel, etc. then they stand to lose significant financial status, possibly losing the entire game within the next 5 years -where will they be positioned when the 2005 numbers show U.S. share of the World Internet market is less than 30% of total world internet commerce?

Business2.com echoes the dire need for globalization of ALL technology start-ups in its May 2000 issue "Go Global -If You're Not Everywhere, You're Nowhere." It shows a startling and convincing analysis of which net companies must have a global start-up strategy to survive in the present global technology market. Silicon valleys are popping up worldwide. For example, Israel's instant messaging hit, ICQ, created a new set of Israeli entrepreneur heroes who became millionaires (when America Online purchased them) to inspire other entrepreneurs like them.

This trend is happening worldwide, right now. By seeing it first, a person or a company can then decide how to position itself to benefit financially from the "next wave" of advanced technology. For example, the next great wireless application will probably arise from Stockholm, London or Tokyo, where wireless penetration is greater than the U.S. or anywhere in the world. India is a software development powerhouse brimming with talent creating technology and companies worldwide. Soon, the market for web translators will make yet another set of software or Internet entrepreneurs millionaires when its discovered how easily computers can translate Hebrew into English or Japanese into Russian, opening up ever more opportunities to enhance communications worldwide. For example, the International Legal Group( uses web translator software that pops up when an incoming message is in a different language and offers to translate it for us.

Expect to see great advances in Internet infrastructure, bandwidth, Internet Video (for teleconferencing between personal computers, basically making your computer a video telephone for under $200 or possibly free like the present "free web" and other valuable Internet services as competition continues advancing and drops costs as new, improved generations are created by individual creativity worldwide.

All of this is already enhancing the trade of regional goods and professional services between increasing numbers of people on all continents from Africa to Asia, North/South America and the pan-European market, which is already passing the U.S. in size.

This means that U.S. high tech Internet companies must have a global strategy from day one, or miss out on billions in cash flow as companies like ebay and America Online have discovered.

* Michael Fjetland,
JD (2000 Global Strategic Consulting Services Division
Worldwide Legal Search Division
International Legal Group

How to cope with all these cultural differences? There are excellent sources of information. Start with Careers.wsj.com and click “Working Globally” to get tips on working in different countries. Roger Axtell, former CEO of Parker Pen Co., has a great book entitled “Do’s and Taboos” and another is a series entitled "Put Your Best Foot Forward," by author Mary Brosrock, with International Education Systems. Hire people who know these differences since it’s more vital to success than their GPA or where they went to school. Attitude is more important. An arrogant or thoughtless executive/lawyer will not be successful globally regardless of pedigree. Unlike U.S. business, building a relationship of trust overseas is more powerful than parchment, and that relationship will carry you past any gaffes.

Women are also quite successful internationally. I’ve met women who have cut deals in the ultraconservative Middle East --even in Saudi where it’s illegal for women to drive. In Brazil, women prefer to dress sexy even for business, so the foreign woman shouldn’t dress too conservatively if she wants to blend in—exactly the opposite of the ‘normal’ rule.

Bottom line: The key to global success -- know the “do’s and “taboo’s.”

• International Business News is a free newsletter written by Michael Fjetland, JD, International Attorney who has negotiated in over 60 countries to date. It is sponsored by the Global American Trading Co.

• To change name or request a new recipient, e-mail your request to fjet@aol.com or INTLEGAL1@aol.com.