A Prize for Yoani's Bruises

Alex, from A Grand Illusion blog, has a great post about how Cuban exile hard-liners may be "deadly scared" about the moderate political views of Yoani Sanchez, the famous Cuban blogger. In his post, Alex highlights Yoani's past moderate viewpoints and mainly responds to Mauricio Claver-Carone, from Capitol Hill Cubans, who earlier this week tried to convince Yoani that those 178 U.S. Representatives who support the lifting of travel restrictions to Cuba are really trying "to take advantage of our [Cuban] family's diversity, in the hopes of hindering our united purpose."

This desperate attempt to deceive Yoani with a tale of Congressional conspiracy absolutely reveals that hard-liners, like Claver-Carone, ARE afraid of Yoani's moderate views, and the global attention they may generate.

So how are hard-liners going to deal with Yoani? Very carefully. This means they will emphasize Yoani's criticism against the Cuban government, acts of repression against her, but when it comes to her views on U.S. policy towards Cuba, she will have no voice. This has been the pattern with all other dissidents, many of whom do not support many aspects of U.S. policy.

If you don't believe me, here's a good example. The Cuban Liberty Council (CLC), one of Miami's most powerful Cuban exile organization, awarded Yoani Sanchez their "Heroes of Freedom" prize last Saturday. The award comes after Yoani has been blogging for about two years, has already gained worldwide attention, and her blog recognized with several international awards.

Why did it take so long for the CLC to award Yoani?

Simple, she's not hard-line enough. Like Alex showed in his post, in the past Yoani has not shown to be a hard-liner or militant. At least not as hard-lined as previous winners of the "Heroes of Freedom" prize, such as Roger Noriega, Mel Martinez or Carlos Gutierrez [full list of previous winners, PDF]. So, the CLC, like other organizations, kept their distance, suspicious of her authenticity.

So what made the CLC change it's mind? Answer: Yoani got beat up by Cuban state agents on November 6th.

After being violently attacked by Cuba's repressive machinery, Yoani recieved her bona fides for the CLC. You see, Yoani's writings were not enough, it took bruises and trauma for the hard-line to embrace Yoani because she now shared their pain. But, most of all, now the CLC had good propaganda: Yoani's traumatic experience would be used as proof of the evil Cuban government.

So why do I think this is what ultimately convinced the CLC?

After the violent incident on Nov. 6th, hard-liners on Radio Mambi (and other media outlets) seemed vindicated. Armando Perez-Roura, programming director of Radio Mambi, gave increased attention to Yoani Sanchez, reading her account of the incident on Radio Mambi, even quoting her entire blog post about the incident in his weekly column for Libre magazine. A rare move.

It was finally reported on November 17th that the CLC would award Yoani Sanchez the "Heroes of Freedom" prize for "her valor, her defense for the civil liberties of the Cuban people, and for the violent attacks she fell victim to, she deserves [the prize], but mostly for knowing how to get the attention of the world with her novel cybernetic struggle." The day of the award ceremony would fall on November 21st, the same day CLC would hold their annual fundraising dinner originally titled "A Cuban Evening with Albita" (Note that this post of the event from Nov. 11th had no mention yet of the award to Yoani, possibly meaning that CLC had not yet reached a consensus to award her).

On November 19th, CLC President Diego Suarez explained to Diario Las Americas (Ena Curnow) that they contacted Yoani "close to about 15 days" ago regarding giving her the prize. That estimate falls very close to the day Yoani was violently assaulted. According to Suarez, Yoani responded by saying it would be "a great honor."

On November 21st, the CLC fundraiser and award ceremony was attended by Diego Suarez, Ninoska Perez-Castellon, Luis Zuniga, Manuel Alzugaray, the new Mayor of the City of Miami, Tomas Regalado, and (of course) Reps. Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart.

All names above support U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba.

Yoani Sanchez does not support U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba.

But the CLC does not care.

[Photo by Sergio Alsina. (Left to right) Ninoska Perez-Castellon, Alberto Hernandez, Diego Suarez]

Ileana Still Needs to Apologize

So I was watching online yesterday's hearing at the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Committee met to hear witnesses and discuss (and sometimes debate) current U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba, which currently prohibits American tourism. I haven't yet finished watching the entire three hour meeting, but had to comment on something I saw that bothered me.

When I have more time I will try to summarize and comment on the other speeches given yesterday. But, if you haven't heard or read by now, yesterday's hearing had one moment that became "highly-charged" as they say [video excerpt above]. This happened when Miami Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [FL-18] directed some controversial comments towards one of the invited witnesses, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey. It should be noted that Gen. McCaffrey is a highly decorated 32-year U.S. Army veteran (three times wounded in action) who also served as "Drug Czar" during the Clinton administration. But, this didn't stop Rep. Ros-Lehtinen from mocking his title, repeatedly interrupting him, and completely misquoting him.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen began by indicating that she would be quoting from Gen. McCaffrey's statements from an April hearing at the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. After first deriding with a sarcastic "woo" cheer Gen. McCaffrey's mention that he met Mr. Castro, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen posed several questions aimed to cast doubt on Gen. McCaffrey's professional assessment that Cuba does not pose a serious threat to U.S. national security. At the April hearing, Gen. McCaffery argued strongly that Cuba and the U.S. should be cooperating in matters to combat drug and human trafficking, and terrorist threats. He even mentioned peacebuilding efforts that would consider the training of Cuban officers in order to carry out these cooperative efforts.

But, of course, cooperation with the Cuban government in any fashion (even to protect U.S. interests) is considered heresy to militants like Rep. Ros-Lehtinen. Therefore, yesterday Rep. Ros-Lehtinen had all intentions to ridicule Gen. McCaffrey and his comments from April. But, in the end, just makes a total fool of herself. Lets review.

MISQUOTE

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen misquotes Gen. McCaffrey from the April hearing where he asserts that the Cuban government is not directly involved in drug-trafficking and drugs that wash up on the shores of the island. She reads a quote that goes:

"... but it was clear to me that they [drugs] were not on a government basis, but part of an international conspiracy to threaten the regime and to threaten their sense of communist morality."

This is what Gen. McCaffrey REALLY said:

"... but it was clear to me that they were not on a governmental basis and part of an international conspiracy. It would threaten the regime, and it'd threaten their sense of communist morality."

[Extended audio excerpt from April, MP3]

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen's inaccurate quote makes Gen. McCaffrey appear to make a defensive argument. But instead he is making an assessment based on his professional review of the intelligence (mentioned in the April hearing), followed by a description based on his several meetings with Cuban officials.

DISRESPECT

Aside from the several attempts to disparage Gen. McCaffrey's professional expertise, and the reported disrespect by addressing him as "sir" instead of "general," Rep. Ros-Lehtinen displayed a complete lack of respect towards an invited committee witness with repeated interruptions, and making mockery of his title. Below is the heated exchange (Gen. McCaffrey in italics):

- I'm offended by your deliberate marginalization of my viewpoints. And let me go on to say that it is clear in my mind...

- Just quoting you sir.

- It is clear ...

- Are those not quotes sir? Are those quotes, yes or no?

- I'm offended by your language.

- You're offended by your quotes?

- Let me go on to continue to respond by telling you...

- What part of the quotes offend you? Your quotes offend me.

- Are you going to let me answer or you gonna...

- I have my five minutes. I can do with my five minutes what I wish "general."

The lack of respect is shocking. There is no question that Gen. McCaffrey as an invited witness still deserves an apology from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Her show of contempt yesterday was a poor example of how an elected U.S. Representative should act, and she should take immediate steps to apologize for her behavior, if she hasn't already.

(Speaking of apologies, has she ever apologized to Dollan Cannell, the filmmaker who caught her saying something on camera that she later denied and accused Cannell of manipulating?)

"Have You No Conscience?"

That's Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [FL-21] from last Monday. It seems that our favorite Congressman from Miami took the time on the House floor to remind everyone of Cuba's oppressed Cuban dissident movement, and comparing their repression to Jewish persecution, and shaming members of the American press for not doing enough to shed light on this genocide.

Rep. Diaz-Balart centered his speech on the health of political dissident Martha Beatriz Roque, who last week was described as gravely ill due to a hunger strike. But, Rep. Diaz-Balart on Monday declared that Roque was "close to death." Yesterday, Roque revealed herself to reporters in Havana who instead described her as "unsteady but far from death."

Huh? This is what happened...

Late last week, Miami Herald reporter Juan O. Tamayo reported about the deteriorating health of Martha Beatriz Roque during a hunger strike which began around Tuesday. (Local Spanish-language news stations America Teve and Telemundo51 also reported on the health of Roque.) The reports described Roque's condition jumping from extremely grave to stable based on examinations by an ambulance crew and one doctor. Tamayo's only source seemed to be political dissident Vladimiro Roca, who was also protesting alongside Roque. Then, on Sunday Roca reported [audio by Radio Marti] on Roque's latest diagnosis by one doctor. The diagnosis included a "sudden case of decompensation" (heart dysfunction by overload), "tachycardia" (abnormal rapid beating of the heart), paleness, sweating, and loss of consciousness.

By Monday morning, Marc Masferrer from the Uncommon Sense blog was convinced that "Cuban Dissident Martha Beatriz Roque is Dying." Masferrer wrote to his readers that this was "not a dramatic exaggeration" but "an accurate assessment of facts on the ground." By Monday evening on the House floor, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart was also convinced that this was the case. (Rep. Diaz-Balart also clearly exaggerated the number of dissidents on a hunger strike with Roque as "dozens" when all reports indicate less than ten) Therefore, he wondered why there was no media coverage about the dying Roque and asked:

"Members of the press, have you no conscience? Do not continue to treat the suffering, oppressed people of Cuba, and their heroes, as non-persons. Please do your duty."

I agree, the press must do its duty. Yesterday, after appearing before reporters Martha Beatriz Roque refused to answer specific questions about her health. Reporters must not allow the rumors of her health go unaccounted for. Did she, Vladimiro Roca, or any doctor exaggerate her condition for increased media coverage? Did their hunger strike end because of Rep. Diaz-Balart's inaccurate public statements?

Cuba's dissidents cannot allow their credibility to be tainted. Their actions must be transparent and without doubt about their goals advocating human rights. Neither should their actions be concerned with politicians who exploit their suffering for selfish gain.

... And Still the Same U.S. Policy [Updated]

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has just released an new 123-page report on Cuba focused on its systematic (and often violent) repression of dissent inside the island. In sum, the report calls for a multilateral policy towards Cuba, rejecting the U.S. embargo, and placing maximum pressure on the Cuban government for the release of political prisoners and a change to its repressive laws.

This new report is based on "more than 60 in-depth interviews [from June and July 2009] with human rights defenders, journalists, former political prisoners, family members of current political prisoners, members of the clergy, trade unionists, and other Cuban citizens." It is an impressive report [summary and full report], here's a sample:

"Raúl Castro’s government has relied in particular on a provision of the Cuban Criminal Code that allows the state to imprison individuals before they have committed a crime, on the suspicion that they might commit an offense in the future. This “dangerousness” provision is overtly political, defining as “dangerous” any behavior that contradicts socialist norms. The most Orwellian of Cuba’s laws, it captures the essence of the Cuban government’s repressive mindset, which views anyone who acts out of step with the government as a potential threat and thus worthy of punishment."

"Imprisonment is only one of the many tactics the Cuban government uses to repress fundamental freedoms. Dissidents who try to express their views are often beaten, arbitrarily arrested, and subjected to public acts of repudiation. The government monitors, intimidates, and threatens those it perceives as its enemies. It isolates them from their friends and neighbors and discriminates against their families."

I also noticed that some bloggers have already mentioned some points like the above, but have not yet gotten to the other important part of the report: the recommendations.

It should be first noted that a multilateral policy towards Cuba has been dismissed for years by hard-liners and militants who instead desire an overthrow of the Cuban government through unilateral pressure (or intervention) from the U.S. government. So, some are going to ignore or reject the recommendations by HRW.

According to HRW: "The embargo imposes indiscriminate hardship on the Cuban population as a whole, and has done nothing to improve the situation of human rights in Cuba. Rather than isolating Cuba, the policy has isolated the United States, enabling the Castro government to garner sympathy abroad while simultaneously alienating Washington’s potential allies."

Therefore: "To remedy this continuing failure, the US must end its failed embargo policy. It should shift the goal of its Cuba strategy away from regime change and toward promoting human rights. In particular, it should replace its sweeping bans on travel and trade with Cuba with more effective forms of pressure."

HRW recommends a multilateral policy that includes 1) a firm committment from "[the European Union], Canada and Latin American allies" to demand the "immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners" inside Cuba; 2) the commitment must include an agreement on the definition of "political prisoner"; 3) provide a six-month deadline that includes punitive measures (such as targeted sanctions) if the Cuban government does not comply; and 4) once this committment is secured, the U.S. must end its embargo towards Cuba

If the Cuban government does not release its political prisoners, the multilateral coalition must impose its targeted sanctions policy. If all political prisoners are released then the coalition should continue with a strategy to pressure Cuba to change its repressive laws on dissent.

The recommendations are bold and its application a moral imperative. I see no reason to ignore or dismiss the recommendations, given the facts of the report.

--- [Update] ---

The Cuban Interest Section in Washington D.C. has already responded to the HRW report saying:

"HRW is an organization that analyzes this issue from a discriminatory, selective and above all politicized perspective. Its evaluation of human rights in Cuba is illegitimate and illegal."

"The presentation of this report in a news conference precisely today has no other intention than to divert the public's attention from the hearing by the international relations committee of Congress on the elimination of restrictions on Americans' travel to Cuba. That audience will be tomorrow. No doubt, a strange coincidence!"

It should be reiterated that HRW, along with Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, has called for the end of the U.S. embargo repeatedly and consistently, including U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba.

Mark Your Calendars!

What better way to take a break from blogging about Cuba than to mark one's calendar with a host of activities about books on Cuba.

The Miami Book Fair International is coming soon next month, with its wonderful street fair just two weeks away. There are several book presentations concerning Cuba (as usual) that look interesting:

- Kenneth Treister will present his new photography book Havana Forever on Nov. 14 (more info), and, in case you miss him, he will also appear at Books and Books in Coral Gables on Nov. 28 (more info).

- Ann Louise Bardach will present her new book Without Fidel on Nov. 15 (more info), as well as Lars Schoultz the same day (more info) with his new (and remarkable) book That Infernal Little Cuban Republic.

[You can view previous book presentations by Bardach here, and Schoultz here. Also, Schoultz recently appeared on C-Span here.]

Spanish-speaking readers will also have some interesting presentations to attend:

- Nov. 14 (more info) a roundtable discussion on "Democracy in Latin America" will present author Alvaro Vargas Llosa (who recently changed his mind about the U.S. embargo towards Cuba) among others, and moderated by local television personality Maria Elvira Salazar. No doubt that Cuba will be among the topics.

- And, Juanita Castro, along with co-author Maria Antonieta Collins will present their new book My Brothers, Fidel and Raul on Nov. 15 (more info).

After the book fair, one can also attend a book presentation by Cuban historian and political analyst Julia Sweig for her new book Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know on Nov. 18 at Books and Books in Coral Gables (more info). Here's a book review by the L.A. Times.

And, I cannot end this post without mentioning the newest book by the prolific Cuban historian Louis A. Perez Jr., Cuba in the American Imagination. To my knowledge, he is not making any presentations, but make sure to pick up this book at your local bookstore or library. Here's an excellent summary of the book.

See you in a month or so.

[Photo by David Gallo]

A Man of Secrets

Since the last post had to do with early CIA activities against the Cuban government, I though I'd add a few things about former CIA Director Richard Helms, the man who became the CIA official in charge of Cuban operations in 1962.

The video excerpt above shows Helms, at the Church Committee in 1975, publicly admitting CIA operations against the Cuban government. He told the committee that the activity "was a government-wide operation supported by the Defense Department, supported by the National Security Council, supported by almost everybody in high position in the government."

Helms mentions various attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, as well as "task forces striking at Cuba constantly," targeting power plants and sugar mills.

Today we would call that terrorism.

In 1962, Richard Helms was assigned to lead Mongoose, the CIA operation against Cuba. Assessing those activities, Don Bohning quotes from Helms' memoirs:

"Despite our maximum effort we had not inspired any resistance activity worth the name in Cuba; the, in my opinion, ill-advised sabotage operations were but pinpricks."

Nevertheless, Helms described Mongoose as "the largest peacetime secret intelligence operation in history." Juanita Castro, sister of Fidel Castro, formed part of this intelligence community.

Juanita's World

In this photo (courtesy of Libre magazine) Salvador Lew holds up a picture of a young Juanita Castro, sister of Cuban leaders Fidel and Raul Castro. I'm sure you've heard the news by now: two years after the Cuban Revolution of 1959, Juanita Castro worked with the CIA helping opponents of the Revolution. Juanita soon went into exile in 1964 after her brother Raul revealed that the Cuban government already knew about her secret activities.

Once exiled in Miami, Juanita Castro and Salvador Lew*, began a propaganda campaign against the Castro government. According to historian Don Bohning, the campaign tour was "secretly arranged by JMWAVE," the CIA headquarters in Miami. Juanita was mostly driven by a sense of betrayal against her brother Fidel Castro:

"He betrayed the thousands of us who suffered and fought for the revolution that he had offered, one that was generous and just and would bring peace and democracy to Cuba, and which, as he himself had promised, would be as 'Cuban as palm trees.'"

Before her departure to Miami Juanita wrote "various letters" to Salvador Lew asking him to head her public relations once she arrived. According to Ann Louise Bardach, Lew was a fellow classmate and student activist with Fidel Castro before the Revolution. Lew also became disillusioned with Fidel Castro and was exiled in 1961. Both Lew and Juanita met for the first time in 1964 when Juanita arrived in Miami.

According to Lew, both he and Juanita traveled to many cities and universities in the U.S. where Juanita would give speeches (in Spanish) against the Cuban government. Lew recalls how Juanita "amazed audiences" with her "extraordinary" oratory. Lew and Juanita even made it to Capitol Hill.

JUANITA THE MILITANT

June 11, 1965, Juanita Castro and Salvador Lew appeared before the controversial House Committee on Un-American Activities. In her submitted statement to the sub-committee, Juanita emphasized the dangers of communism:

"Communism is, and will always be, aggressive by its very nature. So are those who act as its tools... For this reason we affirm that no one can be a revolutionary, a democrat, a liberal, a pacifist, and a believer in progress if one is not an anti-Communist also. Communism is the exact opposite of a progressive democracy. By the same token, one cannot be good if one is not against evil and those who represent evil."

[...]

"I want to make a humanitarian appeal to save my people and the other endangered nations. Communist imperialism and its instrument in the Americas, Fidel Castro, are planning to take over this entire hemisphere. This is no secret."

During this period, with the help of the CIA, Juanita Castro was given a radio program that aired on shortwave inside Cuba and founded the Marta Abreu Foundation. After Juanita ended her relationship with the CIA, the agency cut all funding to both activities. According to her revelations for Univision, Juanita gave whatever money was left from the Marta Abreu Foundation to Alpha 66, the militant Cuban exile organization that was heading terrorist operations against Cuba. After the death of Vicente Mendez in 1970, one of Alpha 66's most admired leaders, Juanita Castro says she stopped supporting such operations.

JUANITA'S BROTHER

But, Juanita's militancy was more nuanced than others in Miami. Where most wished death upon her brother Fidel Castro as the only solution, Juanita only wanted an overthrow.

This nuanced position became apparent in 2006 when the news of Fidel Castro's surgery made headlines. Amongst the celebration in Miami at the possibility of Fidel Castro's death, Juanita stressed that "[t]his is a spectacle, all this happiness." She seemed to disapprove of how people took joy at the suffering of her brother. "The ties of blood are strong," she told the Herald. More specifically:

"To me, Fidel has always been two distinct persons. On one hand, the oldest brother that I love, and suffer knowing that he is sick and, on the other hand, the political Castro with whom I want nothing to do with and would be happy if he hadn't assumed power."

Juanita got a lot of negative criticism for these comments, especially from Radio Mambi. But, Juanita didn't care. She told the Herald: "I never listen to the radio. There is so much hatred in this community. And they will say that all Castro's are the same... And that is a lie."

CHANGES OVER TIME

Because of her more nuanced opposition against the Cuban government Juanita was never accepted by the larger Cuban exile community. Furthermore, Juanita sees her brother, Raul Castro, more favorably than Fidel and believes that Raul can bring about democratic changes in Cuba. This is a position that is also viewed poorly by hard-line Cuban exiles, and generally ignored by the local media.

The story of Juanita Castro and the CIA shows how drastically Miami and the U.S. government have changed in its opposition to the Cuban government. Ironically, the militancy that Juanita once supported, is now her most vocal critic. It's been an interesting half-century of hostilities, but more changes are still required from both governments if we are all to finally live in peace. One should wonder though, how many more secrets are still out there to reveal.


*[Salvador Lew, was former general manager of WRHC-Cadena Azul, founded in 1973 and one of Miami's most anti-communist Spanish-language radio stations. In 1984, the radio station told listeners to boycott Burdines for selling sports clothing by Jane Fonda. Lew at the time called Fonda a "leftist communist." Burdines conceded after receiving several calls from angry customers, including bomb threats.

Salvador Lew was also appointed director of Radio and TV Marti in 2001 (he beat out Radio Mambi's Ninoska Perez-Castellon), until he resigned in 2003 after tensions with employees and a critical U.S. government report. In 2008, he described working at Radio Marti like working in a "branch of hell here on earth."

In a 2008 radio interview, Lew stated: "We have to do away with all the labels. All Cubans are equal. We have all made errors and we all have to fight to free Cuba and so that freedom arrives without blood, without hate and to rebuild the country."]