What Will They Say? (Part 2)

Last week I focused on an article published by the Miami Herald which raised some questions for its editors: "Will [Fidel Castro] still be the dictator? The former dictator? The half dictator? Or if he dies, what should his obituary say?"

This prescient article, written a few days before Fidel Castro publicly resigned as Cuba's immovable President, I found to be quite unoriginal and incomplete. The author, Edward Schumacher-Matos (the Herald's Ombudsman), ignores the very questions he himself raises and provides no direction or guidance to readers (or editors) so they can decide for themselves how to answer those questions. Instead, the article becomes a soapbox for Schumacher-Matos' views in which he criticizes reporters for being "squeamish" when describing Fidel Castro as a "leader" or "president" instead of "dictator." And, finally ends all debate and discussion because "calling [Fidel] Castro a dictator is a fact, as much as it is that most contentious of things, a truth."

In my opinion, Edward Schumacher-Matos never wanted to have a serious discussion about how people describe their political leaders, or to enlighten anyone with a discussion on how the general population reflects on abuses of power by leaders of the world. By avoiding "that most contentious of things," Schumacher-Matos misses a very important point about the word "dictator," leaving readers very misinformed, and journalists in danger of risking their obligations to the public.

"Dictator" is an emotionally-loaded word. It has various uses throughout society describing all kinds of people who abuse their authority or position within a social hierarchy against the wishes of subordinates. Of course, the label is most used when its comes to heads of state: note the recent list of Parade Magazine's "World's Worst Dictators." Obviously, since these are political agents capable of exerting maximum power over a population, they become the targets of the most passioned denouncements, mainly by their victims. Therefore, using the word "dictator" is not merely an act of reporting "fact" as Schumacher-Matos conveniently describes it, it is also an act of outrage, which is not the role of a journalist.

One of the most important tenets of journalism is independence. If a journalist begins to express certain outrage (real or perceived) in favor of one side, then his or her public credibility can be harmed. By settling for neutral labels like "leader" or "president," the journalist prevents any perceived conflicts of interest, and can concentrate on the ultimate journalistic duty of "providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues." I believe the honest journalist will see that this position is justified, unless one is willing to sacrifice the public's right-to-know for one moment's personal outrage.

Yet, sometimes we cannot help it. Emotions have a way of influencing most of our behavior, and sometimes without our control. In addition, those expressions are mostly subjective and sometimes may not adhere to the general attitudes of the population. Therefore, it seems reasonable for the journalist to avoid using emotionally-loaded writing, and instead place priorities towards the science of testing accurate information, and the responsibility of providing relevant context.

But, we are still human, and the word "dictator" still belongs to our arsenal of personal judgments. When the recent "World's Worst Dictators" list came out, several readers' comments nominated President George W. Bush. Even the author of the list, David Wallechinsky, in 2006 stated that "Bush does use many of the same tactics that real dictators use, committing the same human rights abuses that the U.S. State Department condemns when they occur in other countries, declaring himself not bound by laws passed by Congress, and using the old, classic dictator line, 'Our nation is threatened by an evil outside force; only I can save the country and if you oppose me you are unpatriotic and support the enemy.'" (But personally, Wallechinsky does not believe Bush is a "dictator.")

So, what will they say when Fidel Castro dies? For whom shall he be "president," and for whom "dictator?" Let's find out.

[Part 3]

America's Favorite Tyrant (part 4)

The world sometimes may seem very "bizarro," but to ExxonMobil things are fine. During questioning from a 2004 Senate Hearing on corruption, executive vice president Andrew P. Swiger said:

"Business arrangements we have entered into [with Equatorial Guinea] have been entirely commercial, have been at market-based rates, arm's length transactions, fully recorded on our books. They are a function of completing the work that we're there to do, which is to develop the country's petroleum resources and, through that and our work in the community, make Equatorial Guinea a better place."

What does this all have to do with Cuba? EVERYTHING.

The US position on dictators is clear: they don't care for their human rights abuses. If they say they do, it's a lie. The US government looks for profits before principles. It's not the other way around. It explains why they ignore the calls of Cuban dissidents on the island, the majority of which reject US policy. It explains why much of US policy towards Cuba is counter-productive in addressing human rights abuses, policies which most human rights organizations condemn year after year. This explains why many nations, besides Cuba, point at US hypocrisy. Some would say that this is cold reality, but some of these people still consider governments as moral agents. Institutions (the US government) are not moral agents, people (citizens) are.

Looking at the Parade list the other day, at those cruel faces of tyranny, each one with hands that have caused someone to suffer harshly, made me wonder: how can such power over people still exist in the world? The answer can only be that the concerns of people all over the world are secondary to the demands for profits of corporations all over the world.

And only people, not governments, can refuse to be accomplices to such abuse of power.

America's Favorite Tyrant (part 3)

Last year, Fidel Castro (Hollywood's favorite tyrant) made some headlines when he appeared on Forbes Magazine's list of wealthy rulers with an estimated $900 million worth of riches. Forbes reports that their estimate is based on assumptions of Fidel's economic control over state-owned companies, former Cuban officials, and "rumors of large stashes in Swiss bank accounts." Clearly the estimate is not based on hard facts, but nevertheless it is worthwhile to assume.

But, there was another dictator that year on the Forbes list that got little attention, and whose vast riches and corruption are based on hard facts and respectable sources: America's favorite tyrant - Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo.

According to the Forbes article, "Equatorial Guinea's president Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and his government deposited up to $700 million in U.S.' Riggs Bank." And this all came to light when "[a] U.S. Senate subcommittee's 2004 investigation criticized Riggs for failing to report potential money laundering in the Equatorial Guinea accounts." The article quotes a director from Human Rights Watch who says that "[u]nder Obiang, the country's wealth is basically a presidential ATM."

Ken Silverstein, investigative journalist writing for Harper's last year, quoted a member of the House Subcommittee on Africa suggesting the clear corruption of Obiang and his family's wealth in the US, saying "[e]ither that [he's corrupt]…or he's an assiduous saver." In his blog, Wallechinsky quotes a former U.S. ambassador to Equatorial Guinea, John Bennett, saying that Obiang's regime "is not really a government," but rather "an ongoing family criminal conspiracy."

Also last year, Forbes magazine reported that the son of America's favorite tyrant "dropped $35 million [in cash] on an eight-bedroom ocean front mansion [in Malibu] despite a job in his father's government with an on the books salary of $5,000 a month." It's a story that will surely result in another Senate investigation.

The corruption of Equatorial Guinea goes on and on. And, similar to Cuba's plans for a succession of power, Equatorial Guinea is preparing for its own. It has been speculated that America's favorite tyrant is suffering from prostate cancer, and is preparing to hand powers over to his son, Teodorin'.

Will the US allow THIS succession?

America's Favorite Tyrant (part 1)

This weekend, Parade magazine released its annual "The World's Ten Worst Dictators" list. Faster than you can say "President Raul Castro," a caller to Radio Mambi Monday morning pointed out that the Parade list did not include "Hollywood's favorite tyrant" (wink to Humberto Fontova), Fidel Castro. The caller recommend that listeners should write letters to the Miami Herald (who distribute the Parade down here every Sunday), in another attempt to point out how the Herald is an "accomplice" to Fidel's tyranny. It was another normal Monday morning on Radio Mambi.

Obviously, the caller did not read the opening paragraph to the Parade list, where David Wallechinsky (who blogs for the Huffington Post) wrote that Fidel was not included because he had "relinquished power in Cuba to his brother." Yet, Wallechinsky reminds us that Fidel was on last year's list, "coming in at number 15 on the countdown." (My best Casey Kasem)

So, I was looking at this list and I noticed that there were a few faces that I hadn't seen before, but some faces that were very familiar. Wallechinsky writes that the list is based on reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the US State Department (most likely its annual Country Reports on Human Rights). The list is enlightening, yet it is a very short summary of each country's human rights abuses, and fails to highlight the historical background of each case. I recommend the annual reports by those organizations mentioned above.

Anyway, aside from the interest of finding everyone's favorite tyrant on some list, there's one dictator that I notice keeps popping up on these lists, and just so happens to be "a good friend" to the US. His name is Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, president of Equatorial Guinea. Now, before I lose you, this has EVERYTHING to do with Cuba, because if you read the latest US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights, you will notice that Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo is basically Fidel Castro himself. The differences between the two dictators are miniscule.