Additional criticism about the recent "Miami Declaration" (Unidad Cubana's vision towards a free Cuba) comes from Phil Peters at the Cuban Triangle blog, and blogger Alex at Stuck on the Palmetto. As far as any other blogs go, I don't see postings that really examine this so-called "historic" document. Not a single honest examination of approval or disapproval of any of its recommendations. It strikes me as odd, but I figure many are used to passively submitting to what a very influential and powerful organization declares. No questions asked.
Well, those who are honest in their work, like Phil Peters seems to be, today adds more comments on the "Miami Declaration." Peters' comments come after the official posting of the "Miami Declaration" on the Unidad Cubana website, which makes me ask: what were those 20 points that were posted on the Diario Las Americas website, and the Univision/Radio Mambi website after Monday's speech? It seems those were just one part of a larger piece. According to a comment by Henry Gomez on the Cuban Triangle blog, the 20 points that were publicized on Tuesday have been on the Unidad Cubana website "for some time" already. Boy, we all got fooled I guess.
According to the website, the official "Miami Declaration" is composed of the 20-points mentioned, the 5-points mentioned on previous declarations, and new recommendations (which number about 26!), some of which Peters examines. But I'm sure Unidad Cubana could add more if they wanted.
Actually, if you want more, there's plenty on the Unidad Cubana website: from documents for the creation of a Commission of Public Ethics to an agreement for cooperation of nuclear technology in Latin America and the Caribbean. They got the whole free Cuba thing covered. (I wonder if Cuban dissidents know about all this?)
Anyway, I wanted to highlight a point that Phil Peters noticed, namely the recommendation by Unidad Cubana to seek charges against "Cubans who, in exile, dedicate themselves to promoting negotiations with the enemy of Cuba." The wording used is not very clear, since the recommendations are aimed at the "Provisional Government" of a future free Cuba, and thus the fact annuls the whole "promoting negotiations" with a regime that no longer exists, supposedly. But, Peters (and I'm sure anyone else) thinks the whole idea is undemocratic anyway. I think it's ridiculous, mainly because promoting negotiations, or diplomacy, (which most international human rights organizations seriously support) does not prove direct complicity with illegal actions of another. But, I doubt that would move the passions of a proud "intrasigente."
Those who listen to Radio Mambi regularly should know well by now that Armando Perez-Roura, chairman of Unidad Cubana, believes that most of the worldwide press is complicit in the survival of the Cuban government. On Monday night's speech, he referred to them as the "yellow press."
Which reminds me that the audio of Monday's speech (edited) is available at the Univision/Radio Mambi website. The original audio is memorable though, with moving audience outburst and applause. But, you don't want to miss Armando Perez-Roura accusing the Cuban government of committing genocide. If that was really the case, then why hasn't any exile organization taken this up with the International Criminal Court? Hmm?