Declaration of Retribution (Part 2)

So, speaking of international crimes against humanity, it seems that Unidad Cubana also has that covered. According to their website, they already have a constitution written up for the "Independent Court of a Free Cuba." This is the future venue where Unidad Cubana envisions "justice" to be served against the "genocide" of the Cuban government. I'm sure they can come up with other heinous charges, especially if the "independent" court and its judges are appointed by them.

Unidad Cubana appears regularly on Radio Mambi, with Armando Perez-Roura, and they talk about the usual things: how they are gonna have tribunals and charge everyone who they consider accomplices to the Cuban government, even the press and several other foreign companies. In some respects, it should even include the American government. But, they sure love going over how they cannot let anyone go unpunished for "los mártires" (martyrs), and all the time they have been in exile, almost 50 very long years. And, they never forget to reassure us in the end that they don't seek revenge, just justice.

But, saying that you want justice is not the same as doing justice. There's a fine line that divides our legal system from acts of retribution. One of those essential divisions is an impartial jury or judge. By appointing an impartial arbiter in any dispute, one takes a very positive step towards seeking justice. But, in the case of Unidad Cubana and its "Independent Court", there's no mention at all of appointing impartial judges to investigate these serious crimes.

Despite saying that the "Independent Court" constitution "reflects a summary" of such noble international tribunals like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, they still forget essential parts of those statutes that clearly describe how impartial judges are chosen. And, it's so odd that Unidad Cubana omits these important parts because their website actually includes the recognized statutes to the international tribunals of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. So why did they leave it out?

The statutes that appoint judges to the International Criminal Court, and the tribunals mentioned above are basically the same. The judges are appointed through votes of SEVERAL participating members of the UN, or members of an international assembly who have ratified the statutes in question. The judges are also nominated from a list of those who meet several high standards, and who are recognized and approved by many nations. This seems fair and easy to understand. So, it's baffling why Unidad Cubana has left this open to speculation, unless of course they want more control over the appointments. If this is the case, then how can they convince anyone that they really want justice done?

Another point that astounds me in the constitution of the "Independent Court of a Free Cuba", is the part that states the crimes that will be investigated. Yes, genocide is there. But, also the "crime of apartheid."

Those who are familiar with the Cuba debate should be aware that many exiles accuse the Cuban government of apartheid, specifically a "tourist apartheid" where foreign visitors enjoy luxuries and basic services far superior than what Cuban residents have. "Tourism apartheid" in Cuba is a fact, but there's some trouble when the concept reaches international law. There's no "crime of tourism apartheid", unlike the recognized "crime of apartheid."

According to the UN resolution titled "International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid", the crime of apartheid relates to "domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group." The same applies to the definition used by the International Criminal Court. This kind of crime is not occurring in Cuba.

But, if Unidad Cubana has it way in a future free Cuba, it seems that international standards won't matter much. Basically, they plan to do as they wish, and as they see fit. That's not justice.

[Part 1]

Declaration of Retribution (Part 1)

Additional criticism about the recent "Miami Declaration" (Unidad Cubana's vision towards a free Cuba) comes from Phil Peters at the Cuban Triangle blog, and blogger Alex at Stuck on the Palmetto. As far as any other blogs go, I don't see postings that really examine this so-called "historic" document. Not a single honest examination of approval or disapproval of any of its recommendations. It strikes me as odd, but I figure many are used to passively submitting to what a very influential and powerful organization declares. No questions asked.

Well, those who are honest in their work, like Phil Peters seems to be, today adds more comments on the "Miami Declaration." Peters' comments come after the official posting of the "Miami Declaration" on the Unidad Cubana website, which makes me ask: what were those 20 points that were posted on the Diario Las Americas website, and the Univision/Radio Mambi website after Monday's speech? It seems those were just one part of a larger piece. According to a comment by Henry Gomez on the Cuban Triangle blog, the 20 points that were publicized on Tuesday have been on the Unidad Cubana website "for some time" already. Boy, we all got fooled I guess.

According to the website, the official "Miami Declaration" is composed of the 20-points mentioned, the 5-points mentioned on previous declarations, and new recommendations (which number about 26!), some of which Peters examines. But I'm sure Unidad Cubana could add more if they wanted.

Actually, if you want more, there's plenty on the Unidad Cubana website: from documents for the creation of a Commission of Public Ethics to an agreement for cooperation of nuclear technology in Latin America and the Caribbean. They got the whole free Cuba thing covered. (I wonder if Cuban dissidents know about all this?)

Anyway, I wanted to highlight a point that Phil Peters noticed, namely the recommendation by Unidad Cubana to seek charges against "Cubans who, in exile, dedicate themselves to promoting negotiations with the enemy of Cuba." The wording used is not very clear, since the recommendations are aimed at the "Provisional Government" of a future free Cuba, and thus the fact annuls the whole "promoting negotiations" with a regime that no longer exists, supposedly. But, Peters (and I'm sure anyone else) thinks the whole idea is undemocratic anyway. I think it's ridiculous, mainly because promoting negotiations, or diplomacy, (which most international human rights organizations seriously support) does not prove direct complicity with illegal actions of another. But, I doubt that would move the passions of a proud "intrasigente."

Those who listen to Radio Mambi regularly should know well by now that Armando Perez-Roura, chairman of Unidad Cubana, believes that most of the worldwide press is complicit in the survival of the Cuban government. On Monday night's speech, he referred to them as the "yellow press."

Which reminds me that the audio of Monday's speech (edited) is available at the Univision/Radio Mambi website. The original audio is memorable though, with moving audience outburst and applause. But, you don't want to miss Armando Perez-Roura accusing the Cuban government of committing genocide. If that was really the case, then why hasn't any exile organization taken this up with the International Criminal Court? Hmm?

[Part 2]

Fred Thompson in Miami

Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson appeared on Radio Mambi this morning. I heard some parts.

Thompson said that the United States should extend its economic ties with our hemispheric neighbors, in order to strengthen regional peace. Of course, this wonderful effort does not apply to official enemies like Cuba, maybe even Venezuela, since the US "must keep the embargo on."

Beth Reinhard from the Miami Herald, and blogging at Naked Politics, mentions another interesting comment that Thompson made in the interview: "[H]e stopped short of saying Raul Castro should be indicted on war crimes charges for the downing of a Brothers to the Rescue plane. Thompson said he didn't want to pave the way for other nations to indict U.S. officials on similar charges."

I remember hearing this with some surprise. I thought: Our troops charged for war crimes? No way!

Thompson's comment actually highlights a dilemma that Cuban exiles should seriously consider, especially those (like Unidad Cubana) who continuously call for criminal tribunals when Cuba is finally freed from communism (or something like that), because currently the United States REJECTS its participation in international criminal tribunals, and so does Cuba.

Today, there is a court that handles war crimes, acts of genocide and crimes against humanity: the International Criminal Court(ICC). Our last two Presidents (Clinton and Bush) have both rejected the universal principles of the ICC and its founding document, the Rome Statute. Furthermore, current US policy ensures that the US will be IMMUNE to any jurisdiction of the ICC, thus setting a dangerous precedent for other nations. Here's the official background from the US State Department:

"The Clinton administration began actively supporting establishment of a permanent ICC in 1995 and became involved in early planning. However, when 120 nations, meeting in Rome in July 1998 approved such a treaty, the United States voted against it.

"The Rome statute affirmed that 'the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation.'

"The United States determined that, as created under the statute, the ICC could pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. military personnel and to the president's ability to deploy forces to protect U.S. and global interests."

The United States has signed the Rome Statute, but has not yet ratified it and has since undermined its global efforts. According to Human Rights Watch:

"The Bush Administration is attempting to negotiate bilateral impunity agreements with numerous countries around the globe. The goal of these agreements is to exempt U.S. military and civilian personnel from the jurisdiction of the ICC. The U.S. argues that such agreements are contemplated under Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute. Human Rights Watch disagrees. Such impunity agreements violate the Rome Statute and should be opposed. If State parties, as well as signatories of the Rome Statute, sign such agreements they would breach their legal obligations under the Rome Statute.

"Facilitating widespread immunity for U.S. nationals through negotiated bilateral agreements with the United States would provide a dangerous precedent. By signing an impunity agreement with the United States, states parties and signatory states would be endorsing a two-tier rule of law: one that applies to U.S. nationals; another that applies to the rest of the world's citizens. This would significantly weaken international law and states should resist the Bush administration's ideologically driven attack on the ICC."

US citizens, or any Cuban-American exile, cannot seriously threaten the Cuban government with crimes against humanity. It would be pure hypocrisy, until the US fully ratifies and respects the Rome Statute (not to mention other aspects of international law). Furthermore, without the ICC, any other tribunal of crimes against humanity (against the Cuban government for example) would not be recognized.

The tribunals that Unidad Cubana, Armando Perez-Roura, or others call for is but a corrupted display of power and revenge. If they really believed in legal actions then they would abide by the universal standards of law, and advocate that the US abide by such standards too.

Agustin Tamargo (Part 1)

When I first started to listen to Radio Mambi, there was an unmistakable voice that dominated those airwaves in the morning. It sounded like the voice of a man being choked while trying to talk, but it was the determined voice of Agustin Tamargo, who was recovering from surgery on his throat. I knew then that Radio Mambi, through Tamargo, had something important to say, even though I couldn't understand half the time what it was.

Tuning in this morning, I was shocked along with everyone else to hear the recent death of Agustin Tamargo, a determined man if anything else. Listening to the radio, the heartfelt condolences being transmitted was like a partial list of Who's-Who of the Cuban-American leadership in Miami: Radio Mambi's general manager and CPB board member, Claudia Puig, owner and president of "La Poderosa" WWFE 670 AM, Jorge Rodriguez, Miami-Dade Mayor, Carlos Alvarez, House Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, with many more calling in throughout the day I'm sure. Also, some of our local hard-line groups called in as well: members from Unidad Cubana, Vigilia Mambisa, and (of course) the F4 Commandos.