Suffer the Prisoners

My previous post was about last year's release of Cuban political prisoners and the possibility that they were coerced into leaving Cuba as a condition for their release. That was back in July and much has happened since. Currently, 41 of 52 Cuban "Prisoners of Conscience" (listed by Amnesty International) arrested in the Black Spring of 2003 have been released. Forty of them now reside outside of Cuba. Only one was released inside Cuba. Eleven remain jailed.

I had argued that it was likely that the 52 political prisoners were coerced into leaving Cuba based on their public statements once arriving in Spain and a BBC Mundo report from inside the island. More recently, one of the released prisoners in Spain (Omar Rodríguez Saludes) recounted how he was approached to negotiate his release, only to further support the fact that prisoners were indeed coerced.

Now, some might say that this issue is almost irrelevant given that the released prisoners are now living alongside their families (over 130 family members were allowed to leave Cuba to join the released political prisoners) and in far better conditions than a rat and roach infested Cuban jail. But, this is about principle and respect for human rights.

According to Saludes, he was contacted in jail by Monsignor Jaime Ortega Alamino, archbishop of Havana, on July 8th, 2010 and told that Saludes was on a list of prisoners that would "shortly travel to Spain with their family members." All Saludes had to do was accept or refuse. In my opinion this is scandalous because Saludes was never given another reasonable option, only self-imposed exile. Furthermore, the possibility of being release inside Cuba by November was never suggested, nor taken seriously after all once the deadline passed.

Being subject to exile is a violation of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And, people incarcerated should never be forced to make such a decision, no matter how terrible their conditions. In the case of political prisoners, it only adds to their tragedy.

As for the 11 remaining political prisoners in Cuba that were supposed to be released last November, their families are hoping that the next few months will bring good news. In the meantime, the Cuban government is planning the release of other prisoners from jails (not on the list of "Prisoners of Conscience") perhaps hoping that some of the 11 will change their minds and choose self-imposed exile.

[Most recently released Cuban prisoner Egberto Ángel Escobedo Morales (not a "Prisoner of Conscience") celebrated his release by joining the Ladies in White this past Sunday. He is also a member of the dissident group Cuba Independent and Democratic (CID). Last June, Egberto was reported to be in grave health conditions, the local media (Telemundo51) described him as "following the path of Orlando Zapata."]

[I want to also reiterate that self-imposed or coerced exile is not "forced exile." The latter commonly suggests the use of physical force, which was not the case here.]

Human Rights Watch on H.R. 4645

From José Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Americas Division to the House Committee on Agriculture:


[Excerpts below]

Human Rights Watch fully supports the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act (H.R. 4645), which would remove obstacles to legal sales of US agricultural commodities to Cuba and abolish restrictions on travel to the island. We believe the proposed legislation, as well as similar legislation in the United States Senate (S. 1089), represents a necessary step towards ending a US policy that has failed for decades to have any impact whatsoever on improving human rights in Cuba.

[...]

The death in custody on February 23, 2010, of political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo after an 85-day hunger strike served as a tragic reminder of the abuse suffered by those who dare to criticize the Castro government, and the lack of recourse for victims of repression. In the aftermath of Zapata's tragic death, some have argued that the US embargo policy should not be changed, or that restrictions on trade and travel should be tightened further. Human Rights Watch disagrees.

[...]

There is no question: the Cuban government bears full and exclusive responsibility for the abuses it commits. However, so long as the embargo remains in place, the Castro government will continue to manipulate US policy to cast itself as a Latin American David standing up to a US Goliath, a role it exploits skillfully. Ending the travel ban and removing obstacles to agricultural trade are steps in the right direction toward reforming this failed policy, and Congress should act swiftly to pass the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act.

[Full letter here]
[Human Rights Watch Report (November, 2009): "New Castro, Same Cuba"]

... 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.

On Freedom

So I was reading through the Miami Herald stories on Cuba the other day, and ran into this one: Rights Group Prods Obama to Lift Cuba Travel Ban. And boy was I surprised to read who the group was.

Freedom House describes itself as "an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world." But, before you go running for the hills, Freedom House does not have the same agenda of Pres. George W. Bush.

I'm sure some of us still remember Bush's 2005 inauguration speech stating that "the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." Then, a few days later, 50 US Marines were killed in a helicopter accident in Iraq, with 2006 and 2007 becoming deadlier and deadlier for US troops.

Freedom House does not advocate a military strategy. Instead, they support "nonviolent civic initiatives." And, despite justified criticism of its funding ties from the US State Department, Freedom House has recently made impressive steps in its independent analysis of freedom in the world.

One impressive report from Freedom House came out in May of last year. It was called Today's American: How Free? According to them, it was "the first time that Freedom House, best known for its annual survey of the state of freedom around the world, has produced a book-length report on an individual country." According to the Washington Times, the report found "significant flaws in the U.S. criminal justice system, counter-terrorism strategies and the treatment of minorities and immigrants."

The chapter on counter-terrorism policies summarizes "that a number of the actions taken by the [Bush] administration in its war on terrorism present genuine threats to the individual rights of American citizens and of foreign citizens caught up in the counter-terrorism net."

The chapter on racial inequality shows "that poverty for blacks remains far higher than for whites and indeed exceeds the rate for most immigrant groups, including groups that have come to America in substantial numbers only recently."

Back to Cuba, Freedom House has continuously reported on the Cuban government's repression of its citizens' political and civil rights (2002-2008 Country Report on Cuba available). They've repeated described Cuba as the "Worst of the Worst" [PDF] when it comes to freedom for its people. And, my criticism would be that Freedom House, unlike other rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, does not make policy recommendations in its reports. But, that may now change.

This past Wednesday, Freedom House called for a reassessment of current US policy towards Cuba. Freedom House's executive director, Jennifer Windsor, states:

"Cuba remains one of the most repressive countries in the world... It is well past time to reassess a policy that impedes the ability of American citizens to freely interact with Cubans on a large scale and thus expose them to unfettered information about the outside world. We call on the incoming administration of Barack Obama to reexamine the embargo and to immediately lift the restrictions on remittances and travel to and from the island."

"While the Bush administration expanded American support for democracy activists in Cuba, U.S. policy would be even more effective if Americans were allowed to engage more freely with Cuban counterparts... Those countries that have moved from dictatorship to democracy in recent decades have done so in large part because of the movement of people and ideas across borders."

These comments from Freedom House also follow a recent report based on nearly 180 interviews of Cubans on the island. The report, called Change in Cuba, found that "Cubans see little prospect for change, and even the prospect for change seems to give them more anxiety than hope. There is widespread fear that political change will bring crime and insecurity to Cuba."

Also, Cubans "are uninformed or misinformed about Cuba's democracy movement. The Catholic Church provides a small space for some cultural and social activities, but respondents did not see the Church stretching beyond this into a civil or political role. Young Cubans, while particularly disillusioned, are usually apathetic. The most common response to government injustice is to complain and conform."

While this Freedom House report on Cuba is an informal investigation of Cuban attitudes (unlike Gallup's 2007 survey of 1000 Cubans from Havana and Santiago) and filled with anecdotal observations, the conclusions are still worth considering.

"Cubans must find ways to initiate and encourage civic engagement by their fellow citizens. Democracy activists and other civil society actors (e.g. artists, musicians, religious groups, youth groups) have created a space, however small, within which to act with relative independence from the state. Encouraging these groups to continue creating space for civic activity and to expand their outreach may help ordinary citizens take the initial step of participating in small-scale, low-risk activity."

The recommendation to lift the US travel ban on Cuba is also based on the premise of "[p]olicies that contribute to the strength of movements of civic mobilization [that] may make the difference in the struggle to replace dictatorship with a democratic order." Those are some of the findings of another recent Freedom House study.

I believe these are very important statements from Freedom House, and should be seriously considered by our political leaders. Embracing our rights of movement and travel opens up so many possibilities that can enhance the lives of not only Cubans, but of ourselves.

If you want to do more to support the right to travel to Cuba, please check out the TakeAction page at the Latin American Working Group, and John McAuliff's blog which includes several goods links and an online petition calling on the Obama adminsitration for "a policy of engagement and diplomacy" with Cuba.

From the Human Rights Corner...

From Human Rights Watch:

"Despite Fidel Castro’s resignation today, Cuba’s abusive legal and institutional mechanisms continue to deprive Cubans of their basic rights, Human Rights Watch said today. The counterproductive US embargo policy continues to give the Cuban government a pretext for human rights violations."

"However, the Cuban government still needs to take concrete steps to decriminalize political dissent, Human Rights Watch said. Specifically, it should unconditionally release all political dissidents. It should also repeal the provisions of the penal code that provide the basis for gross violations of human rights."

"For more than four decades, the US government has used Cuba’s dismal rights record to justify a sweeping economic embargo aimed at toppling the Castro regime. Yet the policy did nothing to bring change to Cuba. On the contrary, it helped consolidate Castro’s hold on power by providing his government with an excuse for its problems and a justification for its abuses. Moreover, because the policy was imposed in such a heavy-handed fashion, it enabled Castro to garner sympathy abroad, neutralizing international pressure rather than increasing it."

From Amnesty International:

"A spokesperson for the organization said that Fidel Castro’s decision not to continue as president of Cuba paves the way for positive human rights reforms on the island."

"[According to Amnesty International Special Advisor, Javier Zuñiga,] 'Reform in Cuba must start with the unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience, the judicial review of all sentences passed after unfair trials, the abolition of the death penalty and the introduction of measures to ensure respect of fundamental freedoms and the independence of the judiciary.'"

"Amnesty International has also urged the international community, and in particular the US, to abolish policies and practices, such as the US embargo, which impinge on the human rights of Cubans."

Sanctions and Morals

A few years ago, when I began doing research about US policy towards Cuba, one of my interests was on the global use of economic sanctions. One very informative study came from the researchers at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (IIE), and their book Economic Sanctions Reconsidered (now in its third edition). This very thorough examination of economic sanctions, and its various uses all over the world and at different periods in recent history, was very enlightening and made an impact in the field when it was first published. Today, critical assessments of economic sanctions (and other forms of sanctions) are frequently conducted by academic and sanctioning institutions, such as inside the UN.

As I read more about international sanctions, I also tried to consider its psychological interpretation in the form of "indirect aggression" (such as harms inflicted circuitously), and then later its moral applications. The idea of sanctions as indirect aggression is not far-fetched, especially when one considers the historical uses of blockades and siege warfare, and realizes that they share the same goals. By the end of the first World War, nations eventually noticed how they had to change their military strategies to avoid massive slaughter. As a result, then-US President Woodrow Wilson saw sanctions as a way to avoid such direct conflict:

"Apply this economic, peaceful, silent deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. The boycott is what is substituted for war."

But, I never understood how something described as "deadly," or a substitute for war, would bring about peace, or positive change. Furthermore, provided that the research by IIE found that international sanctions have no more than an estimated 33% chance of success (with unilateral sanctions having less success), one also begins to question the use of such policy. The embargo on Cuba raises such simple questions, and considering its long and recent history one can see how the embargo is viewed as a form of aggression against Cuba from the US. Thus, the burden of its justification lies heavily on those who continue to support this form of indirect aggression, and only reasonable and honest to be critical of its supporters.

Constant changes in our global society compels us to review our past actions and beliefs, and again make new judgments on issues and moral dilemmas. In the case of US sanctions, IIE explains the need for such a reassessment [PDF]:

"Since the 1960's, however, trade and financial patterns have become far more diversified, new technology has spread more quickly, and the US foreign aid budget has virtually dried up with the exception of selected countries and objectives, the war of terror, and combating AIDS. Recovery in Europe and the emergence of Japan have created new, competitive economic superpowers, and economic progress worldwide has reduced the pool of truly vulnerable target countries. The most obvious and important explanation for the decline in effectiveness of US sanctions is the relative decline of the US position in the world economy."

From this critical view, one need only go one step further and consider the moral or ethical implications of a specific policy, namely economic sanctions.

Joy Gordon from the Carnegie Council, a research institute whose mission is to "encourage and give a voice to a variety of ethical approaches to the most challenging moral issues in world politics," in 1999 provided some strong arguments on the ethics and morals of economic sanctions, a subject she has written about extensively.

Gordon argues:

"Many of those who defend sanctions do not argue that damage to innocents is morally acceptable, but rather that this damage is not inherent in sanctions and could in principle be mitigated or avoided altogether. Where measures are taken to minimize civilian harm, the argument goes, sanctions are ethically defensible. But this optimism is inconsistent with the nature of economic sanctions, as well as with the history of sanctions and the logic of the vested interests created by sanctions. If economic sanctions are motivated by an intent to do economic damage [such as the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and Helms-Burton of 1996], then partial sanctions and humanitarian exemptions [such as the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000] will allow the target nation [e.g. Cuba] to adjust its economy to minimize the overall damage, undermining the intentions of the political actors imposing the sanctions."

"The more complete the sanctions, the more effective they will be, in terms of economic damage; but that in turn means that the economy as a whole will be undermined. The greater the degree to which the economy is generally undermined, the greater the damage to the civilian population, outside the military and political leadership... Sanctions that are economically effective necessarily entail the greatest harm to those who are the most vulnerable and the most disenfranchised from power."

"To say that sanctions are ethical as long as we make sure to minimize civilian harm is to mask the fact that sanctions by their nature cause harm to civilians directly and primarily."

Gordon, in another article, also addresses the morals of sanctions through Just War theory:

"I do not deny that the contexts in which sanctions and sieges occur may be different, the intent of each may differ, the nature of the demands may be different, and the options of the besieged or sanctioned states may be different. But the moral objection to sanctions does not rest on the analogy; sanctions do not have to be identical to siege warfare in order to be subject to condemnation under just war principles. Indeed, if the intent of sanctions is peaceful rather than belligerent, then the usual justifications in warfare are unavailable. I am morally permitted to kill where my survival is at stake; and in war, I am morally permitted to kill even innocents, in some circumstances. But if one's goal is to see that international law is enforced or that human rights are respected, then the stakes and the justificatory context are quite different. It is hard to make sense of the claim that 'collateral damage' can be justified in the name of protecting human rights; or that international law might be enforced by means that stand in violation of international laws, including the just war principle of discrimination."

These serious criticisms of economic sanctions have made their impact. Currently, sanctioning institutions, like the UN, prefer "targeted sanctions" or "smart sanctions" that have more focus on travel and financial restrictions against targeted political leaders. Yet, this change in practice should not discourage any more serious criticism.

Phil Peters of the Lexington Institute (and blogger for the Cuban Triangle) recently addressed some of the ethical concerns over the US embargo, namely the recent restrictions on family travel to Cuba outlined in the 2004 report by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. Peters, like Gordon, examines these sanctions through Just War principles:

"By their very nature, the new family sanctions do not discriminate. In fact they target the welfare of ordinary citizens, regardless of the fact that the focus of policymakers is the secondary economic impact on the Cuban government when fewer visits take place, and fewer gift parcels and cash remittances arrive."

"The Bush Administration's Cuba family sanctions have precisely the impact that Just War theory teaches states and statesmen to avoid: They harm innocents while leaving the king unscathed. The restrictions on visits and material assistance hurt the Cuban families who are their direct target -- but they are of little to no consequence to the Cuban government except as fodder for propaganda."

While Peters' astute examination focuses on the ethics of the Cuban family travel restrictions, he refrains from making similar judgments on the entire US embargo towards Cuba: "I do not believe that countries have a God-given right to trade with one another or that our unilateral trade embargo is in itself unethical... There are moral virtues to be found in [free trade], but I view the overall free trade issue through a practical, not a moral prism."

But, some scientific evidence has recently convinced me that perhaps there is a need to view global trade through a moral prism. Just last month, Michael Shermer, monthly columnist for Scientific American, made a compelling argument about why the US should trade with Cuba, based on recent scientific studies.

Shermer, a libertarian, who recently argued that "[m]arkets are moral" because they are based on an innate human "moral emotion of 'reciprocal altruism'," has taken one step forward in examining international economic sanctions by considering economic evolution, or Evonomics. According to Shermer, our relative wealth and diversity in retail products is due to market capitalism that evolved as a "complex adaptive system." Just like in biological evolution, "[i]n economic evolution, our material economy proceeds through the production and selection of numerous permutations of countless products." Shermer highlights this phenomenon through the obvious wealth differences between an indigenous hunter-gatherer tribe from South America (the Yanomamö people) and residents of Manhattan. But, there is also cultural evolution involved here. Shermer notes that "[i]n addition to being fierce warriors, the Yanomamö are also sophisticated traders, and the more they trade the less they fight." In the end, trade becomes an important social adhesive that deters conflict and eventually leads to wealth and prosperity.

Following this logic, Shermer deduces that trade (when viewed through Evonomics) evolved as a way to create stability and security within competing tribes (or between any identified social groups), and that "cooperation that goes into making trade successful accentuates amity and attenuates enmity." Shermer cites some very interesting scientific studies that show how trade can be viewed as a form of exchange that increases trust and cooperation between partners. According to the studies, the human brain reacts positively to these exchange exercises and becomes active in producing several gratifying feelings, one being cooperation and trust due to the neuro-chemical oxytocin.

Shermer concludes that "free trade makes people more trusting and trustworthy, which makes them more inclined to trade, which increases trust … creating a self-enforcing cycle of trust, trade, freedom, and prosperity."

While I personally do not support all libertarian doctrines, I do support means that encourage cooperation and peace. And it should be obvious too that most Libertarians in the US oppose the US embargo towards Cuba, since most oppose the use of economic sanctions (or any barriers to free trade) altogether. This fact also reveals a glaring contradiction in those who continue to defend the US embargo, but somehow also defend free market principles.

Anyway, if we accept Shermer's argument that trade will increase feelings of trust and cooperation, and hopefully friendly relations between nations, then one might feel morally compelled to advance such an argument, especially if one considers that the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tells us that "it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations." When viewed as an American, one should also consider that the United States wields great power and influence, and thus has an even greater responsibility than other smaller nations to adhere to the moral norms of international law and human rights. Thus, trade can become one way to promote global cooperation, and then further the cause of human rights.

But, with this perspective in mind, it should also become apparent that there are many more problems in the world that require remedies far beyond increased global trade. The latest World Report by Human Rights Watch highlights these various problems, and also considers how US power and influence has found it "convenient to appear credulous" to violators of human rights. The World Report does not criticize the US for trading with dictators of the world, but with having "fallen victim to the tendencies to bank on the 'democrat' [in reality the dictator] rather than democratic principles."

"If [established democracies] accept any dictator who puts on the charade of an election, if they allow their commitment to democracy to be watered down by their pursuit of resources, commercial opportunities, and short-sighted visions of security, they will devalue the currency of democracy. And if dictators can get away with calling themselves 'democrats,' they will have acquired a powerful tool for deflecting pressure to uphold human rights."

The US, and its citizens, have a great responsibility to evaluate their policies seriously and apply strict principles that defend the cherished values of democracy and human rights. These are ethical and moral decisions to make, but must nevertheless be argued. But, in the case of economic sanctions, its supporters have a much heavier burden to bear, especially in the face of facts that no longer justify its cruel application.

[Read the Human Rights Watch World Report chapter on Cuba.]
[And the chapter on the United States.]

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.

The War in Little Havana

On this day, in 1868, Carlos Manuel de Céspedes issued his proclamation of Cuban independence from Spanish rule: El Grito de Yara. Thus began "Cuba's first formal war against Spain" which also brought to prominence Cuban heroes like Antonio Maceo, Maximo Gomez and, of course, Jose Marti.

These names were called out earlier this month (October 1st) when the "Miami Declaration" was announced at the Manuel Artime Theater, in front of more than 800 Cuban exiles in Little Havana. By memorializing these men, who fought an armed struggle against Spanish imperialism and brutality, some in the Cuban exile community have embraced the soldier mentality, the code of honor, the act of war.

Orlando Bosch was there that night and received a round of applause. US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was also there and surely clapped at the man whom she supported in 1988 as "a valiant freedom fighter."* But, Bosch represents the perverted example of what Maceo, Gomez and Marti fought for. In a 2006 interview, Bosch called the explosion of a plane including women and children "a wartime target" and that "a bomb is proof of rebelliousness, proof of bravery."

Eduardo Arocena, and Santiago Alvarez were other names called out that night. Arocena was sentenced in 1984 to life in prison on several criminal charges and his involvement as the "chief bomb maker" in an attempt to prove his "bravery." Alvarez was another who proved his "rebelliousness" by keeping a "staggering amount of illegal weaponry and ammunition" in one of his apartment complexes, which was soon discovered by federal agents. His original 20-year, 6-count indictment was soon reduced significantly after he surrendered more illegal weaponry, which "consisted of dozens of machine guns, rifles, C-4 explosive, dynamite, detonators, a grenade launcher and ammunition." Alvarez is scheduled to be released from prison before the end of this year.

The official announcer of the "Miami Declaration", Armando Perez-Roura, has publicly stated that an armed struggle is justified, even asking presidential candidate, John McCain, last March if he would support such measures against Cuba.

But, today is not 1868. We don't live in an era of such brutality and violence. Since the end of the second World War, our integrated and interdependent society is structured under laws that prevent such chaos to spread. Back in 1868, laws that protected international human rights didn't exist; we didn't have international criminal tribunals; we didn't have universal protection under the law.

Today, we depend on such values. We care about what is happening across the globe in Burma, we are concerned about the talks between North and South Korea, the peace process in Nepal, or the criminal trial of Alberto Fujimori. We care because their effects will have profound influence in our global society.

But, if we support violence now, in a world far removed from the time of Maceo, Gomez or Marti, the consequences can be far too great to bear, and the risks too great for a society that does not support it. This time, the brave ones will call out "peace", and an end to war.

* [The Miami Herald, February 23, 1988, "Politicians Plead for Bosch's Release" by Carlos Harrison.]

The Miami Declaration in Little Havana

In remembrance of October, a month which includes Cuban milestones like the "Grito de Yara" (a proclamation of independence from Spain) by Carlos Manuel de Céspedes (October 10, 1868) and the beginning of the Ten-Year War in Cuba, La Unidad Cubana organized a special meeting in Little Havana yesterday in celebration of "El Exilio" in Miami and also to make public their "Miami Declaration."

Henry Gomez from Babalu blog was at the Manuel Artime Theater last night and describes a full house with more than 800 in attendance. Veterans of the 2506 Brigade were there, as well as US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Orlando Bosch. But, it was Armando Perez-Roura who everyone waited for that night.

Besides being the programming director at Radio Mambi, Perez-Roura is also the Chairman of La Unidad Cubana, a group that acts as an umbrella organization of various other exile groups who reject dialogue with the current Cuban government, and support "internal resistance by all means" to overthrow it. The Unidad Cubana website is filled with several measures that plan for a future free Cuba, such as several Spanish versions of UN human rights declarations, and "drafts" that outline laws and regulations for a future Cuba.

Ariel Remos for Diario Las Americas provides a report about last night, basically summing up what Perez-Roura said, and provides a copy of the "Miami Declaration" (described earlier last month by Diario las Americas as a "historic document"). But, Remos doesn't mention that the document is essentially a more developed version of what Perez-Roura, and Unidad Cubana, has been publicizing since last year, but which includes some very revealing and troubling additions nonetheless.

Last October, Perez-Roura made a similar declaration (also published by Diario Las Americas, and also described as "historic") that outlined the same concerns and promises made last night. This 2006 declaration had five important points [condensed]:

- Unconditional release of political prisoners and an end to internal political oppression in Cuba.
- Creation of a transitional Government that allows democracy and freedom of all rights.
- Creation of an assembly to create a new Constitution, which in the meantime shall operate under the 1940 Cuban Constitution.
- Recognition of political parties and a date for immediate elections.
- Establishment of the rule of law to protect everyone during the change to a new Republic.

Another similar declaration and the same five points were repeated in January, and now we have the "Miami Declaration." The "Miami Declaration" is far more specific than its two predecessors. It includes 20 points (!) that highlight a transition to a free Cuba, but nevertheless still doesn't explain how this change will begin. One is left to assume that these "concrete steps" follow a popular uprising, or a violent intervention, that paralyzes Cuba in the near future.

I won't go over every step, but I want to first point out that this new Declaration by Unidad Cubana, and based on the guidelines stressed by the "drafts" on their website, seems to violate the very principles they support, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Last night, Armando Perez-Roura said that "the Communist party will be eradicated" in a future Cuba. This statement was repeated today on the 6pm Radio Mambi show La Mesa Redonda reiterating that the Cuban Communist party will be permanently banned in a free Cuba. Such a law would violate Article 2 of the Universal Declaration:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Article 7 also has relevance:

"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."

What has been publicly declared and documented against the Communist party by Unidad Cubana in the "Miami Declaration" could lead to several other human rights violations, which would certainly lead to further conflict, not peace.

The other worrying points I see belong to the creation what they call the "Investigation Commission of Crimes" and the "Independent Court of Justice." The "Miami Declaration" gives no indication of how these organizations will be created, and neither does the Unidad Cubana website detailing the "independent" court, despite the admission that they "examined" the International Criminal Court's Rome Statute, and the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals. Given their partial position against the Communist party, one should worry about the impartial selection of investigators and judges for the commission and "Independent Court of Justice." Unidad Cubana should review the UN report that they have on their website stressing the impartiality of a Truth Commission and a Tribunal.

Most of the other points seem obvious (but with suspicion on their implementation), yet the most surprising point in my opinion calls for the formation of "professional economic advisors" to plan and implement the recommendations of the US Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. This point is very controversial, and will be met with great opposition, even by Cuban dissidents.

In conclusion, I think the "Miami Declaration" has serious faults which should be clarified or changed, but given that these points were made by those who call themselves proud "intrasigentes," then I see a very difficult road ahead to a free Cuba.

An alternative to the "Miami Declaration" lies with the National Dialogue by the Varela Project. But, it includes points that are completely detested by Miami hard-liners, such as amnesty for some violators (which is supported under UN guidelines), preservation of some social institutions in Cuba (opposite of the "total change" called on by Miami hard-liners), and the organization of a national dialogue that leads to national election (the dialogue includes exiles, but limits their participation in early elections in the transition).

No wonder Oswaldo Paya (leader of the Varela Project) is considered a "traitor" by some exile hard-liners, as he seeks a peaceful change in Cuba, not a violent purge.

To Heroes Who Perished...

Six years ago today, the bravery of the passengers of United Airlines flight 93 was reported in the press and heard around the world. That moment of pure heroism (and dramatized in the film United 93) surely touched us all. Upon hearing the reports, President George W. Bush declared September 14 as the "National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001."

Looking back, I feel that it all unraveled afterwards.

Americans today are still traumatized, overwhelmingly fear another 9/11, don't think we are winning the "war on terror", and don't think the US is fully prepared for another attack. Around the world, the United States is feared as a threat, and even our closest allies no longer view us favorably. "Anti-Americanism" has become part of common parlance.

It's clear that the US war in Iraq, and its view of being "illegal in the eyes of international law", and other related frustrations and condemnations has been at the origin of these "doom and gloom" days (mega-dittos). Just read the words of the leading human rights organizations.

Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, wrote in her latest report:

"Today far too many leaders are trampling freedom and trumpeting an ever-widening range of fears: fear of being swamped by migrants; fear of 'the other' and of losing one's identity; fear of being blown up by terrorists; fear of 'rogue states' with weapons of mass destruction."

"Fear thrives on myopic and cowardly leadership. There are indeed many real causes of fear, but the approach being taken by many world leaders is short-sighted, promulgating policies and strategies that erode the rule of law and human rights, increase inequalities, feed racism and xenophobia, divide and damage communities, and sow the seeds for violence and more conflict."

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, adds in his latest report:

"What government is today’s champion of human rights? Washington’s potentially powerful voice no longer resonates after the US government’s use of detention without trial and interrogation by torture. The administration of President George W. Bush can still promote 'democracy'—the word it uses to avoid raising the thorny subject of human rights—but it cannot credibly advocate rights that it flouts."

The abandonment of universal rights and the laws that protect them have come under attack since 9/11, sending an ominous message around the world and gripping people with fear. But, there is still hope in reversing this negative trend and honoring the courage reported six years ago.

Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, upon hearing the battle cries of Americans six years ago, proposed an alternative road to justice. Klare thought that a military action was "highly unlikely [to] actually succeed" and that the best method of achieving justice would be through a "global law enforcement collaboration."

First, Klare suggested we view the hunt of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as a "criminal matter," not a war campaign. Second, "we must seek out and ally ourselves with the vast number of Muslims who are repelled and horrified by the death of so many innocent people in New York and Washington." Third, "[t]o win over peace-minded Muslims to our side in this struggle, we will, of course, have to show greater sympathy for their concerns... After all, we are now victims too -- and this gives us a common basis upon which to ask for their assistance in a common struggle against violence and terrorism."

These are reasonable steps to achieve, and can certainly be extended to all persons (victims or not) protected under international law. Human rights depends on such an approach, a noble effort already revered throughout the world in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But, to achieve these goals, one must have real courage. Just like those heroes we will remember tomorrow.

News from Mexico and Geneva...

Gonna be out most of this week, but I do plan to post any updates on the Luis Posada Carriles case. For example, late last week the Mexican Senate agreed UNANIMOUSLY to urge the Foreign Affairs Ministry "to send a diplomatic note to Washington" for Posada Carriles' extradition to Venezuela. This news has been reported so far by Cuban sources and Iranian sources. I haven't seen it in American papers yet.

I found the Senate resolution from their website, you can read it (in Spanish) here. It describes the Cubana airline bombing of 1976 as "perpetrado por" (perpetrated by) Luis Posada Carriles. It also states that according to the US government's own Patriot Act (section 412), Posada Carriles' "liberación amenaza la seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos" (liberation threatens US national security). I also mentions the incarceration of the Cuban Five, and follows that the temporary release of Posada Carriles is "un insulto para el pueblo cubano y también para el propio pueblo de los Estados Unidos" (an insult to the Cuban people and also to the people of the US). They make proposed three points of agreement:

- Opposition to the temporary release of Luis Posada Carriles.
- To send a diplomatic note to the US urging them to abide by the UN resolutions against terrorism.
- To urge the US Congress to solicit the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles to Venezuela.

In Geneva, one month ago, the UN Human Rights Council convened their 4th Session and reported their findings on human rights in Cuba. You can find all their resolutions here, where they have the Cuban resolution (A/HRC/4/12) in PDF format.

The author of the resolution, Christine Chanet, finds that:

"The restrictions imposed by the embargo help to deprive Cuba of vital access to medicines, new scientific and medical technology, food, chemical water treatment and electricity. The disastrous effects of the embargo in terms of the economic, social and cultural rights of the Cuban people have been denounced by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Health Organization"

And she also makes ten recommendations for the Cuban government, the first three being:

"(a) Halt the prosecution of citizens who are exercising the rights guaranteed under articles 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

(b) Release detained persons who have not committed acts of violence against individuals and property;

(c) Review laws which lead to criminal prosecutions of persons exercising their freedom of expression, demonstration, assembly and association, and in particular Act No. 88 and article 91 of the Criminal Code, in order to bring these provisions of the law into line with the above-mentioned provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;"

There's plenty to go over: the effects of the US Embargo towards Cuba, the repressive mechanisms of the Cuban government, and also includes a list of the still-imprisoned political prisoners from 2003.

Read at your leisure.

What's a Polisario? (Part 3)

King Hassan II, for 38 years, ruled the throne of Morocco's Constitutional Monarchy. In 1999, he suffered a fatal heart attack and passed the crown to his son, Prince Sidi Mohammed VI, who currently rules the Kingdom.

According to the latest US State Department Country Report on Human Rights, "ultimate authority over all branches of government rests with King Mohammed VI, who presides over the council of ministers and appoints or approves members of the government. The king may dismiss ministers, dissolve the parliament, call for new elections, and rule by decree." Furthermore, its current human rights record is summarized as:

"Citizens did not have the right to change fully their form of government. Reports of torture by various branches of the security forces persisted. Prison conditions remained below international standards. Reports of arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, and police and security force impunity continued. Judicial independence from the executive branch of the government remained a problem. The government restricted freedoms of speech, press, and religion. Trafficking in persons continued, and child labor, particularly in the unregulated informal sector, remained a problem."

King Hassan II himself had a problem with human rights. In 2005, Human Rights Watch released a report on Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission (ERC) that was initiated by King Mohammed VI. It reveals a dark timeline where King Hassan II finally began releasing political prisoners in 1991 belonging to "about 270 persons whom the security services had 'disappeared' as long as nineteen years earlier." At the time, King Hassan still had about 400 political prisoners, whom he eventually released in 1994. By this time, outrage continued escalating with allegations that King Hassan's "security services crushed suspected opponents, including leftists, Islamists, advocates of independence for the Western Sahara, and suspected coup plotters. They described how the secret police 'disappeared' hundreds of men and women." When a royally-appointed human rights council investigation found that King Hassan had "disappeared" 112 suspects, independent human rights groups protested saying the actual number was closer to 600 "disappeared."

His son and new monarch, King Mohammed VI has since acknowledged the state's responsibility for the "disappearances" and presented himself as a new leader in addressing many other human rights abuses. The latest World Report by Human Rights Watch describes the Kingdom of Morocco as a "mixed picture on human rights." Morocco still has many domestic issues to confront, and also the issue of the Polisario Front. But, recent news may prove to be hopeful for Western Sahara, despite some who wish further conflict.

[Part 4]

The Other Black Spring (Part 6)

The abuse of power by Robert Mugabe and his government has been atrocious and extremely cruel towards his own people. And, for decades, this abusive pattern has always been justified under the rhetoric of domination by the West. While there is a level of paranoia involved, reasons for hostility exist.

Jerrold Post, one of the leading political psychologists in the US, admits that current dictators have reasons to be fearful of Western aggression, and that paranoia alone is not an adequate explanation. Just like US policy towards Cuba, Britain and the EU will have to review its aggressive policy towards Zimbabwe, or face possible escalations of violence in a country facing an economic downward spiral.

Just as we closely observe the events in Cuba and the health of Fidel Castro, we should also focus on events in Zimbabwe and the 83 year-old Mugabe. Britain is currently looking to toughen sanctions on Mugabe's government, and planning a post-Mugabe agenda for next year's troubled elections.

The following months will provide real lessons on how developed nations honestly react to explicit human rights abuses, and their general behavior towards developing nations and dictatorial regimes. No doubt, a possible future scenario for Cuba.

The Other Black Spring (Part 5)

Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe share an intense displeasure with Western countries. They both accuse the West of being antagonistic and at fault for worldwide poverty. Yet, their accusations of the West are not unfounded, they have good reasons to be angered.

This month's latest report from the anti-poverty organization Oxfam has clearly shown that "trade and investment agreements between rich and poor countries threatens to deny developing countries a favorable foothold in the global economy." The report targets the US and EU for unfair trading practices where "[t]he worst of the agreements strip developing countries of the capacity to effectively govern their economies and to protect their poorest people. "

Like Castro and the US, Zimbabwe shares a hostile relationship with Britain and the EU. Relations intensely deteriorated in 2002 when Britain pushed for targeted sanctions on Mugabe and his cronies after EU election observers where evicted from the southern African nation. Mugabe fired back at the 2002 Earth Summit declaring: "We don't mind having sanctions banning us from Europe. We are not Europeans... Blair, keep your England. Let us keep our Zimbabwe."

The acts by Britain against Zimbabwe, similar to the acts of the US against Cuba, send the same message: threats from the industrialized Western society (and former colonial masters).

But, this shared unstable relationship between developing countries and the West does not justify any abuse of power and violation of human rights from either side.