Originally posted by
[email protected] 2 2005, 09:42 AM
But it begs the question, why does Cuba imprison dissidents to the point that a huge bloc of pretty liberal nations would sanction it in any way?
My first question is why Cuba calls our sanctions "genocide" in front of the UN but then tells his people Cuba doesn't need us or Europe.
I guess all politicians are the same, huh?
Second, a body that appoints Sudan and Libya to run its human rights commission has little weight with me. Certainly our friends and enemies are free to speak their mind, and to trade with Cuba or not. Which I believe many of them do, which begs the question why trade with us is so important in the first place?
It's interesting that criminals are not allowed to vote. Which means Castro may throw anyone he likes into prison and take away that person's ability to vote.
Second, I believe your article was correct in pointing out that people who like Cuba's system believe the collective has rights while the individual does not; whereas the United States and most other nations believe it is the other way around.
Which I find terrifying, frankly. I'd not trade my individual liberty to pretty much live as I please and criticize the government for all the free handouts I can depend on.
I see Cuba allows no parties and, as your original article noted, jails political dissidents. That is the difference between collective-based and individual-based rights, I guess:
in Cuba you have what society tell you that you will have and you have little or no right to complain;in the United States you have what you earn and can ***** about it all you like. I'd much rather have the later (can you imagine the uproar in the United States if we arrested people for "disrespect for authority"??)
I'm sorry, I just value the individual over the collective.
Maybe the question should be, Why do some countries feel they need to judge others when they themselves have not-so-great human rights records? And it is also a matter of opinion wether these so called"dissidents" are politicalprisoners/prisoners of conscience. Here is an interesting take on it:
CUBA: Dissidents funded by US government
BY ROBERTO JORQUERA
At an April 8 press conference in Havana, Cuban foreign
minister Felipe Perez Roque presented vouchers, bank receipts and photos demonstrating the truth behind the charges against 75 dissidents found guilty of conspiring with the US Interests Section (USIS) at the Swiss embassy in Havana.
Perez exhibited vouchers of monies received last year from the US by several illegal organisations in Cuba. The Centre for a Free Cuba received US$2.3 million. The Task Force for the Internal Dissidency received US$250,000. The Program for Transition in Cuba, headed by Frank Calzon, received $325,000. Support Group for the Dissidency received $1.2 million from the International Republican Institute. Cubanet, an internet magazine, received $98,000 and the American Centre for International Labor Solidarity, whose mission is to persuade foreign investors not to invest in Cuba, received $168,575.
At a series of trials of Cuban dissidents in early April it was revealed that James Cason, the current head of the USIS, had conspired with them to provide information that Washington can use in its economic, political and propaganda war against the Cuban workers' and peasants' government.
On March 18, Cuban police began charging those involved in the US-funded dissident network. They were charged under a number of different articles in the Cuban penal code and subsequently sentenced to between 15 and 27 years imprisonment.
Article 5.1 of the penal code, under which many of those arrested were charged, states that any Cuban citizen “who seeks out information to be used in the application of the Helms-Burton Act, the blockade and the economic war against our people aimed at disrupting internal order, destabilising the country and liquidating the socialist state and the independence of Cuba, shall incur a sanction of deprivation of liberty”.
Article 6.1 states that any Cuban citizen “who gathers, reproduces, disseminates subversive material from the government of the United States of America, its agencies, representative bodies, officials or any foreign entity to support the objectives of the Helms-Burton Act, the blockade and the war, shall incur a sanction of deprivation of liberty”.
Others were charged under Article 91 of the penal code that states that any Cuban citizen “who executes an action in the interest of a foreign state with the purpose of harming the independence of the Cuban State or the integrity of its territory shall incur a sentence of 10 to 20 years of deprivation of liberty or death.”
The arrests of the dissidents came after an increase in tension between Washington and Havana over intensified activity by those the US government calls “independent journalists” and “human rights organisations” within Cuba.
Since September, Cason has played the most interventionist role of any previous US diplomat in Cuba. On March 10, the Cuban government delivered a note to Cason asking him to cease his provocative statements and his role organising meetings of Cuban dissidents. Two days later, Cason organised another meeting of dissidents at his residence.
The USIS has also been involved in providing up to $60,000 to the magazine El Dissidente which is sent to the USIS in diplomatic pouches and then distributed by the USIS to Cuban dissidents. Another political magazine, la Revista de Cuba, is actually printed at the USIS.
The case against the arrested dissidents was based on evidence given by a number of Cuban security service agents who had infiltrated the dissident network organised by Cason, including Odilia Collazo Valdes, who headed the Pro-Democracy Party of Cuba, and had been a Cuban security services agent since 1961. These were the key witnesses who provided evidence at the trials about the subversive role of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The USAID web site introduces its Cuba section with the statement: “The overarching goal of US policy toward Cuba is to promote a peaceful transition to democracy on the island. To that end, policy is proceeding on a multi-faceted track: pressure on the regime for change through comprehensive economic sanctions; outreach to the Cuban people; the promotion and protection of human rights; multilateral efforts to press for democracy; and migration accords to promote safe, orderly and legal migration.”
In 1996, USAID awarded the first grant aimed at “promoting democratic transition” in Cuba. The grant was awarded as a result of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 which authorises the US government to provide assistance “through appropriate non-governmental organizations, for the support of individuals and organizations to promote nonviolent democratic change in Cuba”.
The Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996 further elaborates the types of assistance and support the US president is authorised to provide for individuals and independent non-governmental organisations to support “democracy-building” efforts in Cuba.
At the April 9 press conference, Perez said: “The Helms-Burton Act has paragraph 109 which directs the government to distribute money for subversion in Cuba through USAID and it has paragraph 115 which favours giving the money through secret channels, the special services' channels. USAID itself says that the amount they give is the smallest part and, according to [USAID official Adolfo] Franco, it has been $22 million since 1997.”
Perez noted some of the funds that had been provided: “To help create independent NGOs in Cuba $1,602,000; to give a voice to independent journalists $2,027,000; to plan the transition in Cuba $2,132,000; to assess the program, how it is working $335,000.”
He also showed some passes for free access to the USIS which were in
the possession of several of the convicted dissidents — Oscar Elias Biscet and Hector Palacios — who, said Perez, “have official status” at the USIS, in contrast to the numerous restrictions that have been imposed on all US diplomatic offices under new security regulations after the September 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
He insisted that “abundant proof” from experts and witnesses had been presented at the dissidents' trials. “For example, experts from the Central Bank of Cuba testified how the money flowed from the US government and agencies to their agents in Cuba. The routing of dirty money and how it had arrived had been determined: from the US government-front agencies, NGOs, groups and institutions in the US to Cuba, in the form of contraband, under the cover of family remittances, all known to the smallest detail. This is public money from the USAID, we are not talking here about money for special services, the money that the Interest Section gives directly (to their agents) and all that."
It all shows, Perez said, that the US government “plays the main role in creating these groups, in directing, financing, stimulating and protecting these mercenary groups”. He said that while Washington's “intent is to present this as an independent movement arising in Cuba, the so-called civil society, while ignoring the more than 2000 NGOs and Cuban associations which include those from kitchen chefs to feminist organisations, environmental groups, research centres, youth groups, students, and the most diverse areas of social and economic activity in the country, truly insulting all these organisations and their dozens, hundreds of thousands and, in some cases, millions of members”.
In 1994 the US government signed an agreement with Havana to allow 20,000 Cubans to emigrate each year to the US. However, in the last six months the US has only granted 505 visas rather than the 10,000 that it is required to hand out.
Perez stated at the April 9 press conference that over the last seven months there had been seven hijackings of Cuban aircraft and ferries, by people seeking to emigrate from Cuba to the US. Those involved with four of the seven hijackings remain at large in the United States, despite a US agreement not to accept hijackers from Cuba.
In response to the latest hijackings of a Cuban airliner and ferry, three of the hijackers received the death penalty, which was carried out by firing squad on April 11. The hijackers had used knives and grenades, threatening not only the lives of the aircraft and ferry crews but also those of passengers.
Wayne Smith, former third secretary at the USIS from 1958 to 1961 and chief of the USIS from 1979 to 1982, wrote in the April 15 Baltimore Sun: “Cuban authorities have said they believe the hijackings are part of an organized effort by its enemies in the exile community in South Florida to provoke a migration crisis that will lead to the rupture in migratory accords between the two countries.”
Source (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/535/535p21.htm)
Not too sure what link there is between calling the U$ actions genocide and tellling the population of Cuba they can stand on their own???
As for your friends and enemies being allowed to trade with Cuba, sadly this is not the case....remember the Helms-Burton Law? This enables your government to punish non-U$ owned companies for trade with Cuba.
As for the UN, I believe the High Commisioner for Human Rights is Louise Arbour, of Canada.
The U$ is the ONLY "democracy" to deny parolees the right to vote, let alone prisoners:
The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world. Eighteen European democracies permit incarcerated prisoners to vote, as do Canada and Puerto Rico. In the U.S., only the states of Maine and Vermont do so. No democracy other than the United States bars parolees from voting.
Source (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20030217/202/285)