91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ #158 reprinted the text of an Amnesty International statement on alleged violations of human rights in Cuba, and a response to that statement by Havana-based journalist Karen Wald. Both were carried on Pegasus, from which we obtained them, and other electronic networks. Two further contributions to this debate have appeared which may be of interest to readers. The first is a reply to Karen Wald's article, and the second is a response to the first. The name of the writer of the first article here was not included in the electronic posting.
'Solidarity must include critique'
As the cross-poster of a recent Amnesty International news article on Cuba, I am writing in response to the posting "Response to Amnesty 'rights at risk' report".
I believe there are dangers in "knee-jerk" responses to legitimate critique of problems in Cuba and that some balance is needed if a sane solution is to be found to Cuba/US tensions. Most but not all of Cuba's problems are the result of external factors, but there are internal issues which must be dealt with and cannot be written off by sycophantic, unquestioning support of Cuba.
To avoid flames from those who think I am just another right wing anti-Cuban, pro-US apologist, I provide some brief background on my involvement with Cuba for over 22 years. I was a senior member of the first Canadian government aid mission to Cuba in October 1972 and I have also spent 8 years in the Courts of Canada fighting the denial of employment in the Canadian government because of accusations by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) that my loyalty to left wing causes (mainly Cuba) was greater than my likely loyalty to Canada. I was the coordinator of a letter writing campaign in December 1993 which was instrumental in getting the Canadian government to stand up to the USA and approve official development assistance to Cuba in May 1994. I have been an Amnesty International member in the past but am not a member at this time and I do not purport to speak for them.
I have visited Cuba twice in the past year and am actively involved in supporting the work of several non-governmental organisations which, together with their Cuban counterparts, are promoting the development of a decentralised civil society in Cuba, which respects the accomplishments of the Cuban revolution, works closely with the government of Cuba and with the Communist Party of Cuba, but are endeavouring to open spaces for local economic, cultural and (yes) political activities under the new circumstances in which the Cuban state can no longer provide the resources necessary to maintain the high standards of education, health and infrastructure that have been developed over the past 35 years.
I cross posted the Amnesty International news article which expresses their concerns about the arrest of 19 peaceful dissidents in Havana who apparently had nothing to do with the recent demonstrations. I did so because I respect Amnesty and because I think people need to know what international organisations like Amnesty are saying about Cuba. I read the Amnesty piece before I cross-posted it and I noted in particular the following paragraphs:
"We acknowledge that the Cuban authorities have to maintain law and order and have a duty to arrest those involved in violent activities, but peaceful government opponents and human rights defenders should be allowed to carry out their legitimate activities without interference", Amnesty International said today ...
"All those arrested in connection with last week's Havana seafront disturbances or for attempting to leave the country illegally should be immediately released unless charged with a recognisable criminal offence."
These are key elements of the news article and a legitimate source of concern. They are not unthinking diatribes against the government nor are they a part of the US propaganda effort against Cuba. Amnesty does not support the violence of those trying to illegally leave the country but is concerned about the round-up and harassment of peaceful individuals who were not on the Malecon but appear to have been arrested along with the perpetrators of violence.
Amnesty expresses its concern about reports that the Rapid Response Brigades attacked the anti- government demonstrators and urged the government of Cuba to leave law enforcement to the police. Good advice I think.
"The Cuban Government should immediately disband the Rapid Response Brigades or bring them under the direct supervision of law enforcement officials and strictly regulate them by law."
I also note the following paragraph which appeared in an Inter-Press Service story dated August 17 from Havana:
"HAVANA, Aug 17 (IPS) - The Cuban government has shown its determination to stop illegal migration by stepping up investigations on the captain and crew of a Maltese tanker who allowed some 500 Cubans seeking to flee the country to board the ship ...
"About 200 of the people who boarded the Jussara live near the Cuban port of Mariel, located 40 km north-west of the capital. When they got home, they discovered that their houses had been ransacked and their belongings stolen."
Those of us who know and love Cuba and the Cuban people know that there are many people who, out of desperation, could be tempted to try to leave Cuba for purely economic reasons because of the hardships which face every Cuban every day. Some of these people may knowingly or willingly make these attempts as a political act against the government, but some of them might just as easily be acting for highly personal reasons and out of desperation because their children are hungry or sick or whatever.
Should someone acting apolitically out of personal desperation have their houses ransacked and their belongings stolen? Are such human weaknesses something to be punished by lynch mobs? Does Cuba not have a judicial system like any other country, where such acts can be reviewed and the rule of law applied to distinguish between criminal behaviour and social acts which require social assistance and not recrimination?
We know that there are elements of the Cuban state which sometimes abuse bureaucratic privileges and that there are some human rights problems in Cuba. They aren't anywhere near as bad as they are in Guatemala, or Mexico, or dozens of other countries - but they do exist and they have to be monitored and dealt with. To ignore such legitimate concerns in the heat of a very sensitive political crisis only damages our credibility. We shouldn't play into US hands by blowing things out of proportion, but we do have an obligation to the truth - which is very complex everywhere and more so in Cuba.
My personal reading of the situation in Cuba at this time is that the pragmatists and the reformers within the party, the state and a nascent civil society have the better hand in a very unstable political card game. They can lose hands however and the deck can be stacked by outside forces which are very powerful indeed. We have only to look at the revolutionary efforts made in Nicaragua and Grenada to see this. Someone once said, "We do not create objective circumstances".
By unquestioningly supporting everything that is pro-Cuban or defending the Cuban state under any or all circumstances, we do Cubans a disservice as they try to build their own new society. This isn't a "guilty white liberal" argument, but one put forward by Cubans and southern activists everywhere. Our solidarity is a political act and must include critique and open dialogue as well as firm support against the powerful forces that want to destroy the Cuban revolution.
I've spoken out in favour of Cuba many times in the past and I will continue to speak out in favour of Cuba in the future. I do not appreciate being accused of promoting misinformation or being gullible if I cross-post questions about abuses that are real and cannot go unanswered just because of some supposed "greater good" defined by a state or party.
You may not agree with Amnesty's concern for 19 dissidents, but they don't condone the anti-social violence. Nor do they see it as their job to defend Cuba. That's a problem Amnesty always has had with a very limited human rights mandate and methodology. It's their strength as well as their weakness.
I resent having a simple cross-posting attacked all over the Internet by people who didn't even take the time to read the Amnesty article thoroughly and read things into it that weren't there. You don't have to like or even agree with Amnesty's persistent emphasis on individual rights and cases to respect their research and honest concerns for human rights.
Amnesty members have collectively done more to save lives and change abusive government policies throughout the world than many of the armchair revolutionaries who want to attack imperialism but shirk from the messy tasks of building new societies on top of existing imperfect ones.
The Role of Amnesty International
By Daniel Hellinger
The debate over AI's "Human rights at risk" statement needs to move beyond sterile, polarised positions. It is difficult for us who see in the Cuban Revolution a spark of hope that socialism can work, can be democratic, can produce justice, to accept criticism of any aspect of Cuba's behaviour in the midst of a crisis that grows out of the unrelenting campaign of hostility against Cuba.
Cuba is a country under siege. A siege produces a siege mentality. People, like Karen Wald, who live the day to day reality of this siege and who is in a unique position, as a US journalist living in Cuba, to communicate the deep repulsion of the majority of Cubans for US policy, serve an important function. Even if she is wrong to criticise AI's expression of concern for the rights of those arrested after the rioting in Havana and for the 19 dissenters who should not be held responsible for these events, in her expression of anger are some hard questions that I have not seen answered.
These include:
(1) Who are Amnesty's sources? It is reasonable for Amnesty to maintain the anonymity of sources who document abuses, and perhaps this is the case for Cuba. At the same time, it is clear that for the United States government, deliberate campaigns of disinformation about human rights is a bread-and-butter strategy for destabilising governments and building consensus for intervention.
Although Amnesty is to be respected for correcting errors, such as the report on the "babies ripped from incubators" in Kuwait, it should not be forgotten that something went wrong with Amnesty's verification system. And the error greatly contributed to the administration's ability to beat the drums of war effectively.
Now the Clinton administration has openly proclaimed that a new human rights initiative with the United Nations will be a component of a stepped up policy to bring down the Cuban government. In the face of this, I think it is reasonable to ask that Amnesty, Americas Watch, and other human rights organisations make clear how they will ensure that they are not being manipulated — that there is no "blowback" from such a campaign.
(2) Where is the condemnation of the Clinton administration's abuse of the human rights of the refugees and of the Cuban people together? True, an emergency response may not permit a statement on the more profound reasons for a crisis, but the facts seem clear enough here. In a recent article, Juan Antonio Blanco argued that the US policy consists of "economic strangulation + denial of visas + psychological warfare via radio = social explosion". This strategy is well documented in each component. It is especially important in this regard to note the US violation of the 1984 accord with Cuba under which the US is supposed to accept 20,000 Cuban emigrants per year, but which is violated annually despite the Cuban government's granting of more than enough exit visas to fill the quota.
If Amnesty's rules for denouncing rights violations are so restricted as to prohibit it speaking out on this matter, it needs to change the rules.
Note that Fidel Castro faces an unsolvable Catch-22. If he uses force to prevent Cubans from leaving, he and those who carry out the orders would be presumably subject to the same kind of condemnation that former officials responsible for East German border policies now face. If he does not restrict flight, he is accused by the U.S. of promoting an international crisis and callously allowing refugees to die at sea.
Do governments deserve condemnation only for shooting at their own refugees? If they insist that another government use unjustifiable force and threaten them economically and militarily for not using force, are they exempt from criticism? I await an urgent alert from Amnesty urging its members to write Clinton and Reno to condemn the US policy.
As for those of us who defend the Cuban Revolution, we would do well to remember that even in times of crisis and anger the real threat to Cuba's sovereignty and its revolution is not Amnesty International. It is the US government. Precisely because it is a people under siege, rights are most threatened, and Amnesty is right to be vigilant.
Amnesty has a role to play in protecting the rights of people like Elizardo Sanchez, who has consistently condemned the US blockade. No-one knows for sure whether Sanchez is strictly his own agent or get funds from outside agencies, including the CIA. It would be naive to believe that the US government has not coopted, if not created, some dissident groups in Cuba. There ought to be no room in a socialist and democratic society for physical harm or intimidation to dissidents.
But many of us are waiting to see Amnesty and other human rights organisations exercise some courage and caution. Courage in denouncing a US foreign policy that is a major, if not the main cause of rights abuses in Cuba. Caution in assuring in the midst of a dangerous crisis that its information is sound and that it is not be callously used by a government that has manipulated it before to disastrous effect.
[Daniel Hellinger is professor of political science at Webster University in St Louis, Missouri.]