13 Versus Insulza (part 1)

In their tireless efforts for a free Cuba, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart have once again selectively applied the laws they supposedly claim to uphold in their entirety, and have put their names on this ridiculous letter.

Before the letter went out, Ileana was reported as saying that "[o]pening talks now with the brutal Castro regime, before there is any democratization, would be a colossal miscalculation on the part of the OAS that would only extend the grip that the Castro brothers hold over the Cuban nation." This is a false argument that these three Cuban-American politicians have used for lord knows how long. Nevertheless, Ileana, Lincoln and Mario should reread the OAS Charter and consider negotiations if they truly are committed to upholding those principles.

Of the 13 signatories, 8 are from Florida, and three from New Jersey. Nuff said. The three from New Jersey have supported failed policies towards Cuba in the past.

Insulza Watch (part 3)

Any ordinary person can go ahead and read the OAS Charter and see for themselves how US policy towards Cuba violates its very principles. But, its an interesting psychology on how those 13 US Representatives can't see it.


As I have mentioned before, all of the Latin American nations in 2005 signed a resolution that condemned the US embargo towards Cuba. And, looking at the OAS Charter, it is very clear why they did. According to chapter 4, article 20, "[n]o State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or political character in order to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it advantages of any kind."

According to chapter 5, sections 25 and 26, peaceful settlement of disputes between OAS members shall follow "direct negotiation, good offices, mediation, investigation and conciliation, judicial settlement, arbitration, and those which the parties to the dispute may especially agree upon at any time... In the event that a dispute arises between two or more American States which, in the opinion of one of them, cannot be settled through the usual diplomatic channels, the parties shall agree on some other peaceful procedure that will enable them to reach a solution."

Sanctions are not mentioned.

In fact, the OAS Charter has an entire Chapter titled "Integral Development" with emphasizes economic cooperation and integration between member States. According to chapter 7, article 35, "[t]he Member States should refrain from practicing policies and adopting actions or measures that have serious adverse effects on the development of other Member States."

Obviously, the US embargo towards Cuba fails in these respects.

So, its funny how 13 US Representatives signed this letter to the OAS Secretary General to tell him that he is "contradicting" the OAS Charter. But, things are not so weird when we find out who signed this ridiculous letter.

Insulza Watch (part 2)

So, yesterday in Diario las Americas, Lincoln goes on to say that on the 16th of this month a letter, signed by 13 House Representatives, was sent to Jose Miguel Insulza concerning his recent comments about "dialogue" with Cuba. The letter basically makes two arguments: 1) Insulza confuses Cuba (the people) with Cuba (the dictatorship), thus his statements to "dialogue" with Cuba (the dictatorship) only "serve to strengthen the intentions of the totalitarian regime to fulfill its absolute succession to oppress the Cuban people"; 2) Insulza's comments contradicts the OAS Charter, specifically article 3, section D.

Let's analyze these arguments. First, in Cuba, the worst political act of repression in recent years was the 2003 crackdown on dissidents, which arrested some 75 Cubans. This did not occur after the US decided, or uttered, to have a dialogue with Cuba. The reasons behind this crackdown are very clear and have nothing to do with dialogue with the Cuban government. Also, Cuba has continuous dialogue with other nations, and since 2003 no human rights organization has described a significant increase in repression. To believe that a dialogue with Cuba will cause more oppression is without basis.

Second, the accusation that Insulza's comments "contradict" the principles of the OAS Charter is also absurd. Article 3, section D of the OAS Charter basically says that the "solidarity" between OAS members is based on "effective exercise of representative democracy." Well, Cuba is not a member and Insulza isn't really asking for "solidarity" with Cuba, he's trying to help them (the people). In Jamaica (Feb. 7, 2007), Insulza said that "[w]e cannot help the people of Cuba if we cannot talk to them." In fact, he is obeying the purpose of the OAS Charter to "strengthen the peace and security of the continent" (article 2, section A).

Also, Insulza never suggested that Cuba become a member of the OAS. But, even if we were to apply the principles of article 3 of the OAS Charter to Cuba, Insulza still does not "contradict" himself. According to article 3, section I, "[c]ontroversies of an international character arising between two or more American States shall be settled by peaceful procedures." A dialogue falls within this principle. And, Insulza (and the rest of Latin America) has made it very clear that he opposes US policy towards Cuba. On the other hand, if we obey the principles of the OAS, it seems that US policy towards Cuba violates the OAS Charter!

Insulza Watch (part 1)

More news is brewing about Insulza's bad-word. For those who don't know him, Jose Miguel Insulza is the current Secretary General for the Organization of American States (OAS). Last week he got some attention in Miami because of his comments to have a "dialogue" with Cuba. I wrote about how Radio Mambi got all flustered over his comments, even going so far as to call him a communist.

Well, yesterday two newspapers in Miami gave a response to Insulza (in a suspicious example of coincidence). In the local newspaper Diario Las Americas, a paper that frequently serves hard-line rhetoric on Cuba, they published a letter presented by the one and only Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Republican Congressman from the 21st district. Obviously, Lincoln believes that the idea of a "dialogue" with Cuba is contrary to the OAS charter (he cites article 3, section D), and that Insulza is off his rocker. Anyway, his letter is co-signed by 12 other House Representatives from New Jersey and Florida (what a surprise), except for two from Indiana (guess who) and South Carolina (you'll never guess). No real surprises from the list of names that support this letter, which I will soon address.

The other local paper that coincidentally responded to Insulza, the same day Lincoln gets his letter published in Diario Las Americas, is (drum-roll) the Miami Herald! The Miami Herald has had such a rocky relationship with its Cuba-American readers in Miami that it is an entire post all by itself. Anyway, the Herald (trying to win back readers) also comes out and says that Insulza must be nuts to suggest a dialogue with Cuba. They even make the same argument that many on BabaluBlog make. The irony.

There's no doubt that the Miami Herald waited for the letter by the House Representatives to make their own comments. Insulza made his comments more than a week ago! The Herald could have come out all by itself if it wanted to. But, of course, they don't want to step over anyone's feet here. Without question, this is another case where the local media follow the footsteps of the Cuban-American political leadership when it comes to the case of Cuba.

More to Come...

In the meantime, I still respond to my friends on Babalublog, and plan to write very lengthy posts about the Hard-line view in Miami. Some ideas in the process:



- "Hate Speech and Intolerance on Radio Mambi: What International Law Has to Say"
- "Cuban Apartheid and Current Views on Apartheid: A Comparison of Histories"
- "Mr.Gomez is at It Again about the Embargo"

Lots of falsehoods to tackle in the future, dedicated to fans and not so friendly people. Best to all.

Definitely Not "Mesa Redonda"

I've been very busy lately, so I have decided to post links to these great round table discussions from the Council on Foreign Relations and the New Democrat Network(NDN).

On January 23, 2007, the Council on Foreign Relations held a round table discussion called: "Cuba After Castro - The Future of US/Cuba Relations." It was moderated by Julia Sweig, who spoke with Jo Ann Emerson, Republican Congresswoman from Missouri, and James P. McGovern, Democrat Congressman from Massachusetts.

On February 7, 2007, the New Democrat Network held a round table discussion called: "After Fidel: A New Day for America's Relations with Cuba and Latin America." It was moderated by Joe Garcia, Senior Vice President of NDN, who spoke with Democrat Congressman William Delahunt, Julia Sweig, from the Council on Foreign Relations, Janice O'Connell, staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sergio Bendixen, president of Bendixen and Associates, and Miriam Leiva, Cuban dissident in Cuba (by phone).

In the NDN discussion with Miriam Leiva, she brings up the possibility of an international effort to help Cuba. This is another argument against the US embargo, it states that the unilateral sanctions on Cuba has actually been an obstacle to finding a multilateral policy. Its a position that many European nations have been supporting for a long time.

"It would also enable friendly countries, such as the European Union members, to devise together with the United States more effective means to assist the Cuban people on the path to democracy."

- Miriam Leiva

The Cuban Memorial

Many ethnic groups have a trauma in their past, its an archetype that belongs to many cultures and their history. In order to understand and have empathy for their struggles, we should have an open ear to their pains.

The Cuban Memorial, scheduled for this weekend, is a unique feature in South Florida, and its many citizens should take into consideration what this memorial means to many Cuban-Americans.

"The choice that we have is not between remembering and forgetting; because forgetting can't be done by an act of will, it is not something we can chose to do. The choice is between different ways of remembering... Memories do not always bear fruit and may even lead us astray. If we treat the past as holy, we exclude it from the world of meaning and prevent it teaching lessons that might apply to other times and places, to other agents of history. But we do just as much damage through the opposite approach: making the past trivial by likening present events to past ones too easily, trawling it for facile solutions to current issues, betrays history, distorts the present, and opens the door to injustice."

- Tzvetan Todorov, Hope and Memory: Lessons from the Twentieth Century (2003)