Do You Know Where Your Senator Is?

Yesterday, Florida Senator Mel Martinez called in to Radio Mambi from Prague. According to the Prague Daily Monitor, Sen. Martinez, who is currently leading a US congressional delegation through Morocco and Europe, is in the Czech Republic voicing his support for a US missile defense shield. (Sen. Martinez is a member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee.) Washington and the Pentagon is planning to install a missile radar base in the Czech Republic, and 10 missile interceptors in Poland.

"[Sen. Martinez] said it is important for the project that prominent NATO members start to actively support the [missile defense] shield and that they change their 'neutral' stand."

Recent surveys by Opinion Research Corporation for the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance shows that public support is mixed. Americans (70%) fully support installation of the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, with Poles (58%) also in support, but with lack of support by Czechs (51% opposed, 38% in favor).

Poles and Czechs also differed on the security benefits of the missile defense shield to their respective countries. 48% of Poles surveyed believe the project will "provide greater security," but 43% opposed that thought. The majority of Czechs also felt the project would not provide greater security (57%). While both populations surveyed agreed that Iran is a substantial/sizable threat to Europe, they also felt ambivalent about the threat posed to their own country. 51% of Poles saw Iran as hardly any or no threat at all, versus 43% who saw them as a substantial/sizable threat. 54% of Czechs saw Iran as hardly any or no threat at all, versus 37% who saw them as a substantial/sizable threat.

A recent poll in Poland also found that about 70% of the population opposed the missile defense shield. The Polish government has also recently voiced their concern over the risks of housing US missiles, even voicing some opposition. From the New York Times: "This is an American, not a Polish project," Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said in an interview published in the weekend edition of the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza. And, Russia has threatened a new arms race if the missile defense shield is approved.

While in Prague, Sen. Martinez also met with the Senators of the Czech Republic and "spoke about human rights and the situation in Cuba" and "praised the Czech Republic for its uncompromising stand on the Cuban regime it takes in the EU and for its support to dissidents."

In the past, the Czech Republic has advocated a tougher stance on Cuba, which in turn has worsened relations between them. The International Committee for Democracy in Cuba (ICDC) is based in Prague. The ICDC supports the Cuban dissidence through "channeling of funds... to democratic activists" and works towards the "sensitization of European and Latin American public opinion on the topic of Cuba."

Sen. Martinez told Radio Mambi listeners that support for the US embargo towards Cuba is important and must remain unchanged, especially now that the Cuban government is going (or has gone) through leadership changes. By supporting the embargo, Sen. Martinez feels confident that the is US best prepared to support the Cuban dissidence IF a significant political event occurs (which he didn't specify), and IF it occurs this year.

Sounds like more waiting to me.

[Photo by AP]

Battle of Ideas

Some good news was published on Wednesday in the Miami Herald. Gary Fineout reports that the Florida Board of Governors, which heads the State University System, "has told a federal judge to throw out part of a state law that bans colleges from spending money to send professors to Cuba and other 'state sponsors' of terrorism."

The state law, called "The Travel Act," was passed unanimously in 2006 by the Florida Legislature, and banned the use of state, federal and private dollars by Florida universities for academic travel to countries labeled "state-sponsors of terrorism" by the US government. One of the sponsors of The Travel Act, Rep. David Rivera, argued that:

"Anyone who understands the totalitarian nature of the Castro regime and its absolute control over information would conclude that research trips to Cuba are completely void of credibility."

In June 2006, the ACLU, and several Florida university professors and students filed a lawsuit challenging The Travel Act. Bruce Hauptli, chairperson of the FIU Faculty Senate in 2006, argued:

"I believe the Travel Act must be contested because it is essential that we learn and teach the truth about other societies... It is clear that we need to have such learning and teaching to inform our policies and decisions regarding anti-democratic terrorist states... To cut off scholarly ties with, and to prevent our scholars from gaining first-hand knowledge of these societies is short-sighted and may even be risky to our national security in the long run... We need to know more about such states, and ongoing scholarly contacts and exchanges are an important element in acquiring such knowledge.”

Opposition to The Travel Act is part of a larger power struggle between the Board of Governors and the State Legislature over the State University System (SUS), which comprises all the public universities of Florida.

The Board of Governors (BOG) was created in 2003 after former Sen. Bob Graham led a successful campaign opposed to the dismantling of the Florida Board of Regents in 2000 by then-Governor Jeb Bush and the Legislature. The State argued that the Board of Regents, which administered the public universities for more than 30 years, was inefficient and unresponsive to local needs. But Graham noticed that the unprecedented power and political influence of the State, through the Florida Board of Education, was "harming the university system." After a petition drive to collect half a million signatures, public debates on how our public universities should be run, and have voters ultimately decide on the creation of the BOG, Graham's battle still continues over control of the SUS.

Today, Scott Travis of the Sun-Sentinel reports on the ongoing battle between the powers of the BOG and the State, as a lawsuit challenges the authority of the State Legislature to set university tuition rates in Florida. The lawsuit, which was originally filed "by former Gov. Bob Graham, former U.S. Rep. Lou Frey Jr. and others," was recently rejected in court, but will be refiled. According to the Miami Herald, and its interview with SUS Chancellor Mark Rosenberg, the Board of Governors will be standing firm in challenging the authority of the State Legislature over the public universities.

According to Mark Rosenberg, academic freedoms are "sacrosanct" and he feels that the State has abused its authority, especially in respect to The Travel Act prohibiting academic travel to Cuba. In addition, Rosenberg should know well about the history of US-Cuba relations since he is a former professor of Latin American studies, and one of the founders of Florida International University's Latin American and Caribbean Center, which currently includes the Cuban Research Institute.

It should be apparent that The Travel Act is part of US/Cuba politics and the battle of ideas in Miami, ultimately in defense of the hard-line exile identity.

[Phil Peters of the Cuban Triangle Blog has additional thoughts on this story.]

[Photo of Havana University by Roman Virdi from RomanVirdi.com]

Exile: Fear and Shame

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but the determination to live with dignity, rejecting abuse and humiliation."

- Jorge Mas Canosa*


Looking back on some notes, I noticed that a lot of rhetoric by hard-line Cuban exiles focuses on honor and shame. Miguel A. De La Torre wrote thoroughly on this "religion of el macho" in his examination of the "exilic Cuban" through religion, culture and politics. The predominance of feelings of shame and honor may provide some insights into the history of the "intransigent" and past violence in Miami.

This past Saturday, veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion, along with their friends and family, reunited at the historic Orange Bowl in Little Havana. It was here, 45 years ago on December 29, 1962, upon their return from a poorly-planned invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro, that President Kennedy promised the veterans a "free Cuba." Today, President Kennedy is regarded as the man who betrayed their cause, with some in Washington at the time regarded as the veterans' "most powerful enemies," but a cause still pursued in exile nonetheless. At Saturday's reunion, the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association also unveiled a new model for the future "Bay of Pigs Museum and Library," also known as the Cuban Exile Museum and Library.

If there are any men in exile who are held in the highest esteem, they are the veterans of Brigade 2506. For some hard-liners, men like Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch make that list too. They are considered the heroes of exile, those with dignity, who walk vertically, and continue the long history of Cuban militancy (like Martí and Maceo), towards freedom. These men embody the opposite of humiliation, cowardice and shame.

But, after the invasion, and once President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khrushchev both agreed in October 1962 to remove their missile systems from Turkey and Cuba respectively, and end the Cuban Missile Crisis, exile militancy was AGAIN betrayed. On March 9th of this year (Radio Mambi - "En Caliente" Morning Show), Armando Peréz Roura put it this way:

"La beligerancia (the spirit of militancy) was lost when Kennedy sold us out... during the Missile Crisis, sold us out to the Soviet Union, when the fight was already won. And, when he signed the Kennedy/Khrushchev pact. Unfortunately, at that moment they sold us out and turned us into slaves of communism." [MP3]

According to hard-liners in Miami, since the loss at the Bay of Pigs, communism has been allowed (especially by the US) to spread over the rest of the Western hemisphere. In order to remedy this humilitation, Peréz Roura, program director of Miami's most-listened-to Spanish AM radio station (WAQI), has repeatedly and publicly stated his wish for a "crusade... against those terrible evils which threaten the entire continent."[MP3] This evil is, of course, communism of yesterday, and socialism of today. Peréz Roura sees no difference between the two and recently asserted (Tome Nota - Oct. 16) that socialism of the 21st Century is a "weapon of mass destruction" that has caused the death of some 60 million people in the last century. As a result, according to Peréz Roura and other hard-liners, there is "only ONE way" to confront this movement of communists/socialists:

"The way is [obvious] because all of this [Communist domination] would have already become reality years ago, if we [the US] had not acted with a heavy hand."[MP3]

The "heavy-handed" approach by the US across Latin America has many examples and seems to be widely supported in Miami by hard-liners and some in the media. The most extreme view was again repeated this past Saturday evening on Radio Mambi ("Puntos de Vista" Show - 10pm) with one of the hosts saying that all communists deserve to be six feet under, and that once all the communists die "we will finally breathe freely." But, according to the host (a self-described "man of action"), this war against communism will be a long struggle.

My interpretation of this acceptance for exile militancy by hard-liners can be better understood once we consider the shame felt of being in exile (due to communism), the arguments or moral justifications against the official enemy (communism), and the history of militancy and betrayal that some exiles have experienced or continue to suffer. But, the danger of militancy lies in the uncontrollable and implacable force for violence and revenge. There are no assurances of long-lasting peace when groups accept to use violence (or a "heavy hand") as a solution. In addition, drastic actions that risk the security (or potential cooperation) between regional neighbors only serve to endanger it. A militancy that is willing to sacrifice it all does not seem justified, and the "intransigent" who demands justice may inadvertently undermine it for the rest.

A propensity for hostility and aggression may stem from what James Gilligan refers to as "the primary or ultimate cause of all violence": the emotion of shame. This simple model may provide some insight, but only to a certain extent in explaining violent acts committed by some hard-line exiles (and not all exiles) towards the cause of a free Cuba.

Searching through the database at the Terrorism Knowledge Base, one will notice that Miami ranks among the cities with the highest incidents of terrorism in the US. New York, with the most, has 171 documented incidents, followed by Washington DC with 89 (total of city and capital), then Miami with 59, and Los Angeles with 39 (despite having a population almost five times larger than Miami). Most of the incidents listed from Miami are Cuba-related and dated from the seventies and eighties (almost half are from the seventies). Specific details of those incidents can also be found here and here.

Following James Gilligan's theory, "[t]he purpose of violence is to diminish the intensity of shame and replace it as far as possible with its opposite, pride, thus preventing the individual from being overwhelmed by the feeling of shame." Considering that during the seventies two US administrations (Ford and Carter) made attempts to normalize relations with Cuba, the reaction of hard-liners with acts of violence may have been actions in defense of perceived attacks to their image and identity: the honor of militancy (and the history of militancy) to overthrow the Castro regime (or oppressive governments) and being victim to communism (the origin of exile).

If the Cuban government (communism) is the source and cause of exile (with its inherent shame) then one can understand why hard-liners in Miami today reject normalization and propose a "total change" in Cuba. This also may explain why Unidad Cubana (a hard-line organization) has specifically forbidden the communist party from a possible future democratic Cuba. A "total change" in Cuba would accomplish eradicating (through political force or violence) any trace that caused exile in the first place and finally allow exiles to "breathe freely" again. In the meantime, as long as some trace of communism remains in Cuba (by negotiation or compromise), then there is no reason to return to Cuba, just as Jose Martí expressed in 1887. Pérez Roura has expressed repeatedly that if he is ever to return to Cuba it will be with his head held up high (pride), and not any other way (with shame). This is perhaps a predominant feature of what it means to be an "intransigent": [T]o diminish the intensity of shame and replace it as far as possible with [pride]. Following this logic, and considering other additional conditions, may explain why violence became widespread in exile.

There's are some moral principles involved that may have justified acts of violence in the past by hard-liners. I've identified three main principles:

1) "Bad behavior does not deserve a reward." Following this principle, actions by an individual or group are by default generally limited to hostility. All other actions, especially those that may appear to be ambiguous or positive, are forbidden. Thus, current US policy is justified since it is apparently hostile, while ending the embargo is forbidden since the action itself can be perceived as positive (even if it was not intented to be). Abandoning militancy also may be perceived as positive.

2) "Bad behavior deserves punishment." This principle justifies retribution (or revenge) against all enemies (in our case, the Cuban government). To do otherwise sets a dangerous precedent, harms lessons of the past, and allows shame and humiliation to spread. In exile, this principle is further strengthened by a militant history where violence (as punishment) is seen as the only path towards remediation.

3) "Threats and aggression suffered by enemies are justified for the greater good." With the ultimate aim to eradicate the origin of evil (communism) and free Cuba, exile militancy and violence is excused even if innocent people suffer. The intent here is towards a "free Cuba" by whatever means (including violence), not to harm people, but those that stand in the way shall not derail this goal. Not even the US government. This principle also describes the sometimes conflicting interests between the US government and exile militancy, such as in handling exile terrorists or attempting to reach agreements with the Cuban government on some issues.

Let's add the perceived betrayal throughout history of the hard-line exile that has added to its suffering, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the lack of reporting or bias from the American free press about the "real" Cuba, or the refusal by the US government to use the "heavy-hand" in solving problems in Latin America and Cuba. That betrayal is further worsened when one considers that the US is the country that has also helped exiles the most. This explains why some hard-line exiles feel extremely grateful (and patriotic) towards the US, but at the same time feel that they are on their own in the struggle for a free Cuba. That hard-liner feels confused when heroes like Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch, Eduardo Arocena or Santiago Alvarez are imprisoned. That hard-liner also wonders why the US has not already used the "heavy-hand" to confront Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales or Rafael Correa, and instead may consider that perhaps there is a conspiracy involving the US and its worst enemies.

The social conditions for violence must also be considered. Martha Minow has generally described these conditions as: "socially approved violence, tacit permission to discriminate, and pervasive violence in mass culture."

Assuming that "[n]o other military in world history has been so widely deployed as that of the United States," it seems easy to accept that a militant ideology is an integral part of our functioning society, along with the violence it may generate. When the US began its mission in Iraq, it didn't take long for the late Agustín Tamargo in 2004 to ask: "And Cuba, President Bush? What about Cuba? Why yes on Iraq and no on Cuba?" The tragic consequences of such actions don't dawn upon the militant. But, again, the hard-liner felt betrayed by the inaction of the US to intervene in Cuba.

Discrimination (especially political) is also common, especially on Radio Mambi where there is a virtual ban on divergent political views. In other outlets, voices opposed to US policy towards Cuba recieve little coverage locally, and if expressed must be immediately rebutted or delegitimized. On the other hand, supporters of US policy recieve ample media coverage and little criticism from their hosts. The general acts of discrimination easily label one a "communist" or "apologist" in order to discredit, render voiceless, or dismiss without consideration. Without an avenue of defense, these views (and its individual) are left vulnerable to acts of hostility.

Memory and history of the hard-line exile perhaps marks the most important element that allows exceptions for violence. Hard-liners are always prepared to recall and express how the Cuban people always had to settle their problems through armed struggle. From recollection of the heroes of Cuba's first struggle for indepence to the Bay of Pigs (or even the sabotage missions of the seventies), the spirit of militancy has been internalized through memory by some hard-liners, such as Alpha 66 (who say they still train with arms at their camp "Rumbo Sur") and the F-4 Commandos (who say they continue with sabotage missions inside of Cuba). Appeals to memory and selected history form the basis of the militant hard-liner and again identifies the exile as the displaced victim of disaster or betrayal.

Flora Keshgegian further articulates how "memories are key to diasporan identity" from the perspective of the Armenian diaspora:

"Diasporans are, by definition, displaced. One could well argue then that diasporans' lives are defined not by location so much as by memory. Having lost 'homeland' and place as a locator of identity, diasporans define themselves by their memorative narratives. In a sense, all that diasporans have of their homeland are the memories of it... If memories are key to diasporan identity, and if those memories are of disaster, [...] then letting go of the memories of disaster would constitute a further loss of place and identity. Diasporan identity is thus constituted, at least in part, in relation to a past trauma."

Since memory and identity are so close and dependent in exile, violence may be the defense to hard-liners who see themselves threatened by US normalization with Cuba. This policy attacks the essential elements of the hard-line exile, especially their vision (or memory) of a "free Cuba." Keshgegian continues:

"Further, these memories of disaster or catastrophe often are compared and contrasted with an idealized image of homeland and place... This interplay, and even mutual dependence, between the disaster memory and the idealization of homeland and how each holds the other in place may be said to be a key dynamic of diasporan identity. There remains a basic desire for what can no longer be (and, in reality, never was): a home not fraught by disaster or even turmoil, an Edenic existence. Loss is measured against this ideal. Life in diaspora is witness to the loss and to an attendant yearning for the idealized time and place of 'home.'"

The fear of losing a militant Cuban history through normalization may also foresee the end of experiencing the "free Cuba" some hard-liners wish for. Additionally, those who seek violence (or power) may also be defending their valuable "nationhood" threatened by the long wait in exile (close to a half-century). As Larry Ray remarks about those who would suppress "the plural nature of modern identities": "[N]ationalism is an allegory of irresolution, an expression of fear of the transient nature of the nation."

The building of the Bay of Pigs Museum and Library, and have it placed prominently in downtown Miami, seeks to preserve that "nationhood" and may be but another extension of the exile's desire to present a unified (and militant) identity, thus denying the fear of losing their history (and memory) and even their honor, embodied in their exile heroes.

Unfortunately, due to this exile identification with militancy (in order to fight threats of normalization with Cuba) many innocent families in Miami became victims of a cycle of violence, regardless of which side they where perceived to be on. Already mentioned, the seventies in Miami were notably violent, and as a result, families such as that of Juan Jose Peruyero still have to confront that violent past. While such violence no longer threatens our community, there are still victims of acts of intimidation and abuses of power. This is the atmosphere of the current battle of ideas in Miami.

*[Miami Herald, November 25, 2007, Cubans Cling to Faith (Op-ed) by Ninoska Pérez Castellón.]

[Photo of Brigade 2506 veteran at Orange Bowl, December 29, 1962, by Cecil Stoughton, JFK Presidential Library and Museum]

Preserving an Image Through Policy

When Presidential candidate Barack Obama gave a speech in Miami this past August, and proposed a different US policy towards Cuba, Miami hard-liners reacted in ways that were very revealing. I also wrote then that Obama "had hit on something really big." The hard-line reaction and defense of current US policy revealed to me the fact that the hard-line Cuban exile identity was politically and psychologically dependent on the embargo.

After the Miami Herald printed Barack Obama's new policy towards Cuba, Al Cardenas, current political advisor to Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, appeared on Radio Mambi and articulated how it was an insult to the Cuban exile community for Barack Obama to express his views publicly here in Miami. He and radio host Ninoska Pérez-Castellón agreed it was "truly insolent." According to Cardenas, "now this man (Obama) has the audacity to reserve the same space, the same platform of Ronald Reagan, to give a speech on integration here in the heart of OUR community."

Armando Pérez-Roura, program director at Radio Mambi, was also deeply offended by Obama's comments, especially on the Cuban travel restrictions. But, Pérez-Roura found solace (yet again) in the writings of the "apostle" Jose Martí. In his daily radio address (Tome Nota- Aug. 22), Perez-Roura addressed "the scoundrels who settle for an arrangement with the criminal who has committed many crimes against our homeland," and responded to them with comments made by Jose Martí in 1887:

"War brought us here. And here our hatred towards tyranny keeps us, so deeply rooted within us, so essential to our nature, that we cannot tear it from ourselves without living flesh!"

"For what have we to go back there, when it is not possible to live with decorum, neither yet it seems the hour to return and be buried. Go to Cuba for what? To hear the lashes on the backs of men?"

"To see the repugnant association between the children of the heroes, of the heroes themselves, belittled in sloth, and the vices they flaunt in the face of those who should live with their back towards them, their disgusting prosperity?"

"To see the enlightened in shame, the honorable in despair, [...] the women with impure company, the farmer without the fruits of his labor?"

"To see an entire country, our country [...] dishonor itself with cowardice or an excuse? A stab is not enough to say how much that hurts. Return, to such shame?! Others can, we cannot!"

Luis Conte Agüero, on his TeleMiami television program, also gave a response to Obama and his new policy on Cuban travel restrictions. Conte Agüero, a former student of philosophy, revealed that some in the Cuban community may be torn about the travel restrictions, but nevertheless argued that this sense for humanity doesn't necessarily affect the position of the "intransigent." To Conte Agüero, the "intransigent" is forever loyal to the old Independence heroes like Martí and Maceo.

There's actually a thread that connects these reactions. They speak of an imagined Cuban exile as politically homogeneous, sharing one single history (of militancy), whose dignity is inextricably tied to the existence of one policy: the US embargo. Thus, if someone speaks out against that policy, then they disrespect the entire Cuban exile community.

This may explain the fierce reaction that some receive from hard-liners when one speaks out against US policy towards Cuba. The hard-liner may not only be defensive of the policy as a justified punitive measure, but also may be protecting an integral part of the imagined Cuban exile under attack. The image itself is also integral to the wider belief that the Cuban government is the official enemy, and the original and sole cause of exile.

The Cuban Adjustment Act is another policy that the imagined Cuban exile depends on. This past July, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart was on Radio Mambi with Armando Perez-Roura (Jul. 5) and spoke of the "responsibility to act like a political exile." That day, a caller to the show complained of those Cuban exiles who travel to Cuba shortly after receiving their residence through the act. Rep. Diaz-Balart agreed, saying that these people are abusing the Cuban Adjustment Act:

"Those who abuse [the Adjustment act] endanger the rights of all... All Cubans are treated in effect, by the Adjustment act, as POLITICAL asylees. And thus those who abuse that great privilege in going back to Cuba, traveling to Cuba, after receiving their residence by the act, endanger the act."

"By receiving that exceptional and extraordinary treatment that no other country in the world has, it bears [on exiles] the responsibility to act like a political exile." [MP3]

Just as the US embargo helps to reaffirm the Cuban exile identity (as victim of communism and the Cuban government), so does the Cuban Adjustment act operate in the same fashion. Any perceived attacks or doubts about the policies, also casts doubts on the Cuban exile image, and especially the hard-line image. And, that in itself is no different than a personal attack.

This interpretation also leads to other characteristics of the imagined Cuban exile who shares a unified politico-historical identity. If what Martí said in 1887 is an accepted belief of the "intransigent," or the hard-line Cuban exile, then it might infer that the Cuban exile is also hurting from shame. Or, as Marti put it: "a stab." And, this pain must be avoided at all costs. Armando Pérez Roura said it best after reciting Martí:

"For what have we to go to Cuba? To watch impassively the destruction, the crime, the insult, everything that has been done to the Cuban family? Everything that has been done to Cuba? No. Esteemed listeners, we must raise our voice to remind those who wish to relieve themselves of the responsibility, of what it means to experience the "Cuban drama" only 90 miles away, to shut their mouths. If they don't want to help us, then don't come with dishonest proposals. We won't accept them, no matter the price we pay." [MP3]

This dimension of victimization and shame may shed light on past violent episodes in Miami.

Some Lessons I Learned

"Deceit and violence - these are the two forms of deliberate assault on human beings. Both can coerce people into acting against their will. Most harm that can befall victims through violence can come to them also through deceit. But deceit controls more subtly, for it works on belief as well as action."*


Looking back over the year (and even some years before), I noticed that there were many reasons why Mambi Watch was created.

In doing research for this post, I found an old journal of mine that brought back some memories. It revealed that around the end of 2003 the monotony at work had allowed me to pay more attention to local news and politics, and soon on national politics. The start of the Iraq War without question had an influence, as it surely had upon the rest of the nation. I was soon drawn further into important questions on politics (which I never paid attention to before), followed by philosophy, and soon psychology.

Following the notes in my journal, the amount of literature I began reading (mainly related to the social sciences) had soon grown significantly and somehow my interest turned to US-Cuba relations. The topic must've seemed very attractive at the time: politics, power, a fascinating history, moral dilemmas, and it was all happening in my backyard. I soon began to focus more of my research on the topic.

Mambi Watch, when it began one year ago, caught me still researching the topic of US-Cuba relations, and provided two wishes: to make public certain facts that I felt were being neglected in the discussion of US-Cuba relations (especially by the local media), and to challenge what I felt was the distorted view of US-Cuba relations in the local media.

Looking back, I realize now I went head-first into unknown waters and with few swimming lessons.

But, Mambi Watch became part of the learning experience that was already underway. By investigating and challenging the local media's accepted image of Cuba, I would not only be able to challenge my personal assumptions on the matter, but ensure that I had informed myself well on the differing views about the island, especially from the hard-line.

And honestly, I never expected the hard-line rhetoric to be so crude and aggressive when it came to Cuba. It further troubled me that public violence and intimidation marked some instances in the expression of contentious views related to Cuba, especially in Miami during the 70's. As a result, I find it very disturbing that (30 years later) there are still influential individuals in our community that condone or ignore acts of violence and intimidation when it comes to Cuba-related issues. But, I learned there's a reason for that.

If there was one important lesson learned after one year of Mambi Watch it would only reaffirm the idea that information is power, and that Miami is perhaps THE battleground when it comes to US-Cuba relations. And, in my opinion, the public interest is losing.

Information sources like Babalu Blog (one among many similar websites) and Radio Mambi (one among many other Spanish-language media outlets) only help to distort the image of Cuba and decieve the general public in order to accept only ONE policy towards the island: unilateral sanctions. This punitive measure encourages and is an extension of similar aggressive US policies on other nations, exercised contrary to the opinions of the general public.

With political power placed within the hands of hard-line policy supporters in Washington and Miami (and with the predictable acquiesence of their loyal followers), Miami over the years has internalized these general hard-line principles, which itself depends on accepting a homogeneous image of the Cuban exile community. And, in a circular logic, that image also depends on political power and power over information about Cuba.

Provided that the political climate between the US and Cuba has changed very little (due to intransigent forces on both sides), I see no reason to believe that the structures of US/Cuba politics and power will soon change radically.

Of course, there are alternatives in changing this political stalemate. But, it is not likely that South Florida residents will be exposed to them. The local media (especially Spanish-language) has no incentive to challenge the prevailing view supporting US policy towards Cuba, and neither the courage to question the power and image of hard-line Cuban exile politics, and its psychological dependence on US unilateral sanctions.

A review of events of the past year would further clarify some of these points.

*[Bok, Sissela. (1978). Lying: moral choice in public and private life. New York: Pantheon Books.]

What I Missed

Boy, have I missed out. Here's some Cuba-related news I missed from the last two weeks.

CUBA: AMONG TOP 5 JAILER OF JOURNALISTS

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) released several special reports concerned about the growing incarceration and murder of journalist around the world. One CPJ report shows a dramatic and continuing increase in death of journalists since 2002, making this year "the deadliest year for the press in more than a decade." According to CPJ, "[f]or the fifth straight year, Iraq was the deadliest country in the world for the press." The second-deadliest place for journalists was Somalia, followed by countries such as Nepal, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Haiti, Honduras, Russia and Mexico. No mention of Cuba. (Aside from Iraq, the US currently conducts military operations in Somalia, which is a growing conflict considered "the worst on the [African] continent." Also check Human Rights Watch report: "Shell-Shocked".)

But, Cuba was included in the recent CPJ report on journalists around the world jailed without charge. According to CPJ, "[n]early 17 percent of journalists jailed worldwide in 2007 were held without any publicly disclosed charge, many for months or years at a time and some in secret locations." The world's leading jailer remains China (for the past NINE years), followed by Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, and Azerbaijan. "Twenty-four Cuban journalists are imprisoned, CPJ found, most of them swept up in a March 2003 crackdown on the independent press."

Of the top five jailers mentioned above, the US has diplomatic relations with three of them: China, Eritrea and Azerbaijan. Both China and Azerbaijan, despite their human rights record (China and Azerbaijan), have strong diplomatic and economic relations (both with MFN status) with the US. On the other hand, US-Eritrean relations have been getting worse, especially with Eritrean involvement in the Ethiopian/Somali conflict, and an abandoned border dispute between Ethiopia, a US ally.


INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Last week (December 10th) marked Human Rights Day around the world, but was followed in Cuba by two paradoxical news reports: repeated assault and intimidation against Cuban dissidents and the announcement that the Cuban government is prepared to sign two important Human Rights agreements (check the Cuban Triangle blog).

The new repression of dissidents in Cuba was captured on video (unedited video at US-funded Marti Noticias website) and highlighted in Miami by local Spanish programming (such as "A Mano Limpia" hosted by Oscar Haza). Yet, despite the news from Cuba, thoughts on Human Rights Day was focused on other grave issues.

Irene Khan, Secretary General from Amnesty International (AI), sent a public message from the website explaining that "we have cause for both celebration and challenge." Khan mentions that "[f]rom Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, human rights are being violated, neglected and eroded with audacity and impunity by governments, big business and armed groups." In her message, Khan specifically focuses on seven regions for "renewed commitment": Darfur, Zimbabwe, the Middle East, China, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan and "the world’s most powerful government" (the United States).

A few days before December 10th, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a new 140-page report on the massive political crackdown in Burma from September. "[HRW] research determined that that the security forces shot into crowds using live ammunition and rubber bullets, beat marchers and monks before dragging them onto trucks, and arbitrarily detained thousands of people in official and unofficial places of detention. In addition to monks, many students and other civilians were killed, although without full and independent access to the country it is impossible to determine exact casualty figures." The US has trade sanctions on the Burmese government, but the American-owned Chevron Corp. still operates there, and has received increased pressure from human rights groups and Congress to either pull out or push for human rights.

A few days after December 10th, a coalition of human rights groups from Zimbabwe reported that since January "there have been 549 cases of torture, 3,086 of unlawful arrest and detention and 2,719 violations of the right to freedom of expression, association and movement." The high numbers include the violent March crackdown earlier this year against the growing pro-democratic movement in Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, President Mugabe , who believed the March crackdown was "deserved", will most likely run for re-election next year, especially with the continued backing of the ruling party and the increased rhetoric against western "sabotage" by the US and the EU. Both the EU and the US have sanctions policies against Zimbabwe that do not seem to be working at all.


ANOTHER GAO REPORT

Last year's report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that found waste and fraud on aid going to Cuba (with reports dismissed by Babalu blog as "pointless" and "hardly news") now has a sequel that again focuses on US policy towards Cuba.

According to the new GAO report (reported by Marc Lacey for the New York Times), US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "conducts secondary inspections on 20 percent of charter passengers arriving from Cuba at Miami International Airport, more than six times the inspection rate for other international arrivals, even from countries considered shipment points for narcotics." This concentration on Cuba, according to the GAO, has "strained CBP's capacity to carry out its primary mission of keeping terrorists, criminals and inadmissible aliens from entering the country at Miami International Airport."

The news has already allowed opponents of the US embargo to state that "[i]t’s vindictive. It’s stupid. It’s costly. And now we find out it’s a threat to our national security." Time will tell how this news will be received by the American public.


FAREWELL TO SOTP

Also, I wanted to say good-bye and thank you to the bloggers formerly from Stuck on the Palmetto. I enjoyed that blog, as I'm sure many did, and will miss it. Best wishes to both bloggers.

What I Meant to Say (Part 2)

Been busy and distracted away from this blog. Also, the One-Year Anniversary of Mambi Watch is approaching (Dec. 27th) and I hope to complete all unfinished thoughts before the New Year, review the mission of Mambi Watch, and make revisions or alterations of what the ultimate goal of this blog was. Without question, I learned many things about US/Cuba relations over the year, and I hope to articulate those new lessons for interested readers.

Below is the other series that I meant to finish.

THE IRONIES OF MIAMI

The general thrust of this story was to point out how ironic it is that some Cuban exile hard-liners (who also describe themselves as supporters of human rights) are also among the most intolerant and threatening agents against freedom of expression in Miami. I began this story with the reports of a recent lawsuit [PDF] started by Rafael Del Pino, former high-ranking general from the Cuban military who defected in 1987, accusing prominent members of the local Spanish media of intimidation and violent threats in response to a series of articles he wrote in the local paper calling for negotiations between the Cuban government and the US.

I saw this recent event as part of Miami's long history of intolerance by some in the Cuban exile community towards opponents of US policy and the embargo. While the acts of intolerance and intimidation in Miami go way back, the documented history by human rights groups goes back to 1992 when Americas Watch published a report titled "Dangerous Dialogue: Attacks on Freedom of Expression in Miami’s Cuban Exile Community, and soon followed by a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report in 1994 titled "Dangerous Dialogue Revisited" [PDF].

The 1994 report was the result of events that same year following the April visit of several Cuban exiles from Miami to Havana for a Cuban government-sponsored event about migration issues. The days following their return, the Miami Herald reported on several occurrences of violent threats and intimidation aimed at those exiles who attended the Havana conference, especially after the Cuban government released a video of the participants at the meeting with Fidel Castro. It is video that is still used by some to discredit those who attended more than 13 years ago.

The HRW report describes "death threats, bomb threats, verbal assault, acts of violence, and economic retaliation" against those in Miami who attended the Havana conference. The report also acknowledges the fact that "Magda Montiel Davis, a prominent Miami immigration lawyer... became a focal point for the post-conference backlash against participants." The reports by the Miami Herald after the conference (which were many) concur with the HRW report. Several articles described how the participants (and their families) of the Havana conference became the victims of widespread intimidation.

Initially describing some points at the Havana conference with Fidel Castro as "nauseating", former Herald columnist Liz Balmaseda in 1994 later wrote of the "backlash":

"A knot of protesters attacks [Magda] Montiel's car. Her staff quits... A burst of raw eggs hits the house of one exile's elderly mother. Schoolchildren taunt the 14-year-old daughter of another exile. Other participants report a wave of harassment. A bank executive has lost accounts. An office worker has lost her job. Another has lost friends. One woman claims she got beat up at a coin laundry.

"Much of what happened in Havana was lamentable. But here, the ambassadors of intimidation couldn't leave it at that. They couldn't let the already blatant contradictions of an exchange between 219 exiles and four Castro officials stand as their own indictments. They couldn't leave the mob thing to Havana... No, these of a narrow and narrow-minded faction had to go out and be cartoons. Only they forgot their maracas and fruit-laden hat baskets. They had to throw Miami back to the days when people were afraid to speak their minds... and those days had faded."*

But, the most ironic of all the ironies of Miami, was an act that occurred on June 24, 1994, about two months after the Havana conference. According to the HRW report (and reported by the Herald):

"On June 24, 1994, conference participant Emilia González went to have her hair done at the Cadris Hair Design salon in Miami. She was accompanied by two grandchildren, ages eight and six. Everything seemed normal, and Ms. Gonzalez sat for her hair cut. Toward the end of her appointment, however, several women came in to the salon, shut and locked the door and, together with the salon employees, proceeded to shout and hurl insults at Ms. González: 'Communist, traitor, get out of Miami!' Several held signs: 'If you like Fidel so much, go live in Cuba,' and 'Only vermin like Fidel will kiss Fidel,' She was struck by at least two people, hit on the arms and face. All of this occurred in the presence of her grandchildren. Eventually, Ms. González escaped with the children through a back entrance. Extremely distraught and worried about her high blood pressure, the elderly Ms. González sought medical attention."

The HRW report called it an "Act of Repudiation."

The last act of violent intolerance that I can think of occurred on January 19th, when members of the Bolivarian Youth were publicly attacked by Vigilia Mambisa after engaging in a counter-protest on Calle Ocho. It was all caught on video. A report was later filed with the City of Miami police department against the attackers, but charges were never filed after the investigation. Instead, the police told the Bolivarian Youth to pursue their case alone in court.

Another occurrence I can think of that came close to an act of intimidation was in August when the Cuban child custody case again made Magda Montiel Davis a target. In the midsts of Radio Mambi callers again voicing their disgust towards Montiel, radio host Ninoska Perez-Castellon allowed one caller to give out the office number of Montiel's office on the air.

It should be obvious to anyone that freedom of expression also entails having the freedom from obstacles that impede one to freely express oneself. That means protection from intimidation and threats that retaliate against popular or unpopular viewpoints. Furthermore, its should be obvious to those who constantly defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that freedom of expression extends universally as "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family."

Article 19 of the UDHR says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

And, Article 7 says: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

I sometimes wonder if some people in Miami truly understand these words.

[Part 1]

[*] Miami Herald, May 18, 1994, "Backlash Beats the Video for Absurdity" by Liz Balmaseda.