Raul Castro's International Relations: Europe's Last Dictator & Sri Lanka's Genocidal President

"I really do inhabit a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions." - Václav Havel, October 1989

Sharing Havel's worldview is the reason that while observing the situation in the world one is compelled to offer an opinion and when circumstances demand it to repeat it and act on it. This is the situation with regards to the regime operating in Cuba that makes a negative impact not only on the lives of Cubans in the island but around the world in places like Belarus, China, Iran, Libya, Sri Lanka and Syria.

Many of these tyrants, like their Cuban counterpart, share Havel's view, but whereas he expressed this statement with hope and optimism, they view it with fear. It is for that reason that these dictatorships attack freedom of the press and freedom of expression because they view both as an existential threat.

Raul Castro and Alexander Lukashenko

The past two weeks have once again demonstrated its defense of dictators and genocidal regimes with visits from heads of state from Belarus and Sri Lanka leaders to Cuba. At the same time in Geneva at the U.N. Human Rights Council its efforts to silent critics while defending brutal dictatorships demonstrates the horrid nature of the regime.

Alexander Lukashenko is the last dictator of  Europe and has the prisoners of conscience. He has been the "president" of Belarus since 1994. His official visit to Cuba on June 24, 2012 was not his first. Both Lukashenko and the Castro brothers have a lot in common in persecuting dissidents and stifling freedom of expression and association.

Mahinda Rajapaksa, the president of Sri Lanka and Raul Castro

In the case of Sri Lanka, in 2009 the Cuban government's diplomats took the lead in blocking efforts to address the wholesale slaughter taking place in Sri Lanka. The Foreign Policy Association reported at the time that:

As expected, Cuba’s seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council has already become an obstacle to the process of investigation and recognition of gross human rights offenses. Yesterday Cuba succeeded in blocking debate on abuses in Sri Lanka, which many countries have pushed for after the extreme violence that rocked the country earlier this month.

Amnesty International said that “[t]he vote is extremely disappointing and is a low point for the Human Rights Council. It abandons hundreds of thousands of people in Sri Lanka to cynical political considerations.” In 2011 the regime's diplomats opposed a reopening of the Sri  Lanka case which many have called a genocide. The official visit to Cuba of Mahinda Rajapaksa, the president of Sri Lanka (considered by many to be a war criminal) should dispel the illusion that Raul Castro is any different than his predecessor.



Some on the Left that recognize this loathsome behavior attempt to minimize it within a cold war paradigm but to do so they must ignore the Castro regime's strategic embrace of the Argentine military junta in the 1970s that disappeared 30,000 leftists. Not to mention its initial reception to the Bush Administration shipping prisoners to Guantanamo.

The choice is simple and clear it is not one of being right or left but whether you believe that human beings have dignity and fundamental rights that you are willing to recognize and defend or you don't.  In Cuba, under the Castro brothers the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered a subversive document. It is for these reasons that the dictatorship in Cuba and its ally Venezuela have no place on the U.N. Human Rights council. The effort to remove or keep out of the membership these kind of regimes from the Council is not done out of small mindedness but out of a desire to save it from irrelevance.

At the same time it is up to all of us wherever we are to speak out when we have the opportunity for those who are being silenced in solidarity with them.

UN Watch Offensive Throws Castro-Chavez Alliance on Defensive

Banging on table, Cuba, China, Russia & Pakistan lash out after call to exclude Chavez, other abusers from UN rights council

Concerted U.N. speeches slam Chavez bid for rights council seat;
Dictatorships urge "striking NGO statement from the record" 

 VENEZUELAN EX-POLITICAL PRISONER ELIGIO CEDENO CHALLENGED HIS OPPRESSOR; CHAVEZ REP CALLS HIM A "TERRORIST" AND "CRIMINAL," UN WATCH A "U.S. LACKEY"

 GENEVA, June 28 - UN Watch's "Stop Chavez" campaign heated up today when Cuba, Russia, China and Pakistan lashed out at concerted speeches by high-profile guests Eligio Cedeno and Thor Halvorssen, in what one observer called a "major take-down" of Venezuela's Chavez regime and its bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. (See video at mark 27:20.)
 
UN Watch, which heads an international campaign of parliamentarians and human rights groups opposed to Venezuela's candidacy, organized the speech today by Eligio Cedeno, Venezuela's most-wanted man (photo below). The banker and former political prisoner, who escaped the clutches of Hugo Chavez for asylum in the U.S., confronted his oppressor in a powerful plenary statement.

Exercising its right of reply, Venezuela's representative called Cedeno a "terrorist and criminal who fled justice." The Chavez diplomat falsely accused the U.S. of having invited Cedeno to the council, which he said was "to smear the reputation of my country." He also accused UN Watch of being a U.S. "lackey.“ (See video at mark 1:55:30)

And in a concerted effort with UN Watch, Thor Halvorssen, the Venezuelan-born head of the Human Rights Foundation -- whose mother was shot by Chavez forces -- also took the floor to challenge Venezuela's credentials, as well as those of existing members Cuba, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Click here for speech.

Thor Halvorssen of the Human Rights Foundaiton

Shouting repeatedly for the U.N. chair to stop the speech, the Cuban delegate flew into a range, fists banging on the table, and knocked over his chair.

Cuba insisted that non-governmental activists taking the floor at the U.N. “cannot question the hopes and aspirations of states to become members of the Human Rights Council, or their right to be members. You cannot say that my country does not have a right to be a member of this council.” Havana's delegate demanded that Halvorssen’s statement be “struck from the record.”

Russia and Pakistan similarly claimed that Halvorssen spoke out of turn. China said that activists at the U.N. “are not entitled to challenge the right of a country to become a member of the council.”

However, UN Watch director Hillel Neuer said that a quick intervention by the U.S. apparently convinced the chair to let the statement stand.

"Today was a rare moment at the U.N.," said Neuer. "We succeeded in putting Chavez -- who throws independent judges in jail, persecutes student activists, and aids mass murderers like Ahmadinejad and Assad -- on the defensive."

When Halvorssen referred to “authoritarian” regimes, Cuba interrupted again, calling this a “disrespectful term,” and asked the chair to prohibit him from speaking. China also objected, saying no one at the U.N. human rights council has a right “to label a sovereign state, to point a finger at a country that is a member, or which wishes to become a member.” 

This was reported in the Canada Free Press.
 http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=3265363&campaign_id=63111

Lessons from the Embargo on Apartheid South Africa for Castroite Cuba pt. 2

 Unfortunately one of the new lessons from the campaign to impose an embargo on the South African Apartheid regime is that that since 2000 with the Supreme Court decision citing the Supremacy clause in Crosby versus National Foreign Trade Council which means that relations or trade with a foreign country is governed by the federal government and that state and local governments can no longer place their own sanctions on foreign regimes unless it is in accordance with federal government policy. In 2000 the Supreme Court forced Massachusetts to do business with companies that had done business with the military junta in Burma. According to constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson in the Fordham Law Review the Crosby decision compels state and local governments to cooperate with evil.

In recent days it appears that this sordid practice may be repeated in Florida where a Brazilian multinational is suing over a state law that bans companies that do business with the regimes in Cuba and Syria. The Miami Herald in a June 5, 2012 editorial stated that:

The U.S. Constitution does not give states the right to conduct their own foreign policy — indeed, imagine 50 states conducting their own foreign affairs; that would be disastrous. The Civil War clarified where “states’ rights” stop.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/05/2834402/another-inevitable-lawsuit.html#storylink=cpy

The Miami Herald got it wrong, the history of the United States indicates just the opposite. Governors of states are considered subnational foreign policy actors pursuing commercial agreements on behalf of their respective states. Would the Miami Herald call on the governor of Florida along with other state and local officials not to pursue commercial opportunities for their respective state and local governments? Furthermore, the rights of states and local governments to impose restrictions on nefarious regimes and unjust practices has a long history. John Kline from Georgetown University in a paper titled "Continuing controversies over state and local foreign policy sanctions in the United States" exposes the inaccuracies in The Miami Herald's editorial:

Recent state and local government sanctions on business with Burma and certain Swiss banks renews a debate over foreign policy powers in federal systems that operate in an integrated global economy. International business promotion has become an accepted function of state and local governments. More controversial is the imposition of foreign policy sanctions, where economic involvement becomes a lever to pursue political goals rather than an objective in itself. When compared with past cases, including South Africa and the Arab boycott, recent state and local initiatives demonstrate both continuity and fresh departures in federalism's evolving adjustment to the global economy. These developments can be used to examine theoretical concepts such as constituent and multilayered diplomacy. They also argue for improved practical cooperation among the multiple and diverse actors engaged in foreign policy issues.

That is to say that the tactics and strategies used by the anti-Apartheid movement to organize a grassroots campaign that obtained national sanctions against the South African government by first passing sanctions at the local and state level to build momentum nationally would be impossible today thanks to the already mentioned 2000 Supreme Court decision. Grassroots activists and US citizens have been stripped of that power while corporations in business with despicable and brutal regimes such as Burma, China, Cuba and Syria have been empowered.This is another example of the centralization of power in the central government that in fact undermines federalism,

Nevertheless citizens and activists can still impact federal policy via a successful strategy executed by the anti-Apartheid movement in the 1980s that overrode a presidential veto:

Our three-pronged strategy had worked: first, consult with grassroots activists and provide them with the grounds from which to press in congressional districts for the most principled position possible – in this case,complete disinvestments and embargo, second, work with willing national organizations to generate a lobbying presence on behalf of bold government action – maximum sanctions, in the case of apartheid – always creating pressure to move the middle to the left, third, engage congressional colleagues and educate them about the issues and the pathways for change.

At the same time people power, one of the most potent tools in the arsenal of anti-apartheid activists is still available today despite the Supreme Court decision. During the struggle against Apartheid it had a huge impact:

 Among the most sustained campaigns, involving national organizations as well as providing a target for local demonstrators, was the campaign to boycott Shell that paralleled campaigns in Europe directed at the same multinational company. Beginning with a sit-in by the Free South Africa Movement at the Shell offices in Washington, DC,159 the campaign gained support not only from the United Mine Workers, but also other unions, including the AFL-CIO trade union federation. And it tied the action to support of the National Union of Mineworkers in South Africa. Desmond Tutu joined the press conference launching the boycott, and churches joined actively in the coalition. The Interfaith Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) added Shell to its list of 12 key corporate ‘partners in apartheid’ targeted for divestment actions.

 The lesson here is clear a coordinated targeting of companies doing business with repressive regimes such as Cuba targeting them with boycotts, protests, sit-ins and peaceful invasions of said companies until they divest from the Castro regime. Its worked before and it can work again today.

Commitment to Freedom

This document was first published today in Capitol Hill Cubans and favorably cited in The Foundry by the Heritage Foundation's Latin America expert Ray Walser:

Prominent Cuban Exile Corporate Leaders Warn of Castro’s “Cosmetic Reforms” 


Over a dozen former Fortune 500 senior executives and other multinational business leaders urge support for the Cuban pro-democracy movement and reaffirm their commitment to help the economic reconstruction of a free Cuba.


Washington, D.C. - Prominent Cuban exile business and corporate leaders released today a document entitled “Commitment to Freedom”, rejecting business ties with Cuba while the island remains under totalitarian rule. However, they are committed to helping in the reconstruction of their homeland when freedom dawns.


The signatories are former senior executives from Dow Chemical, General Mills, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Colgate-Palmolive, Bacardi, American Express Bank, PepsiCo, Warner Communications, Reynolds Metals, Continental Bank International, Martin Marietta Aluminum, Amex Nickel Corporation, as well as the head of Jazztel and other distinguished business leaders. 


The signees of the document warn against the Castro regime’s deceptive campaign to secure U.S. capital infusion and bank credits, and lure some Cuban-American businessmen, without ushering in a true economic and political opening. The reforms introduced so far are mostly cosmetic, heavily-taxed and revocable, and offer no legal protection or investment return.


To neutralize the opposition, both inside Cuba and abroad, the signers assert that the regime is promoting “reconciliation”, with the apparent backing of the Catholic Church hierarchy, but only as a smokescreen to intensify repression. Peaceful human rights activists are systematically harassed and arrested.


Instead of bailing out the failed and ruthless regime, the document calls for support of the leaders of the growing pro-democracy movement in Cuba. They, and not their oppressors, should receive international recognition, financial resources and communications technology to carry out their heroic struggle.


Here is the letter:


COMMITMENT TO FREEDOM


We, the undersigned, Cuban exiles with deep roots in U.S. and international corporations, institutions and business communities, wish to convey our great concern regarding the Castro regime’s deceptive campaign aimed at securing much-needed financial resources to prolong its iron grip over the people of Cuba.


The regime is facing the severest financial crisis since the early 1990s, compounded by the possible loss of its Venezuelan life line. But instead of ushering in a true economic and political opening that would unleash the entrepreneurial skills of the Cuban people and attract foreign capital, it has only introduced non-systemic, heavily-taxed, revocable reforms with no legal protection or investment return. To stay afloat, the regime is pursuing a three-pronged strategy: 


First, it is trying to induce the U.S. to lift or further weaken the embargo to funnel tourist dollars and bank credits to the bankrupt island--a bailout under the guise of constructive engagement.


Second, it has apparently enlisted the support of the Catholic Church hierarchy in Cuba to promote “reconciliation” under the current totalitarian system, while continuing to hound, beat and arrest peaceful opponents and human rights activists across the island.


Third, it is seeking to divide and neutralize the Cuban-American community, and lure some of its businessmen, by selling the fallacious concept that there is no solution to Cuba’s predicament other than supporting cosmetic reforms without liberty and democracy. 


We reject that outrageous proposition, since for us, and for most Cuban-Americans, there is no substitute for freedom. We believe that, absent the dismantling of the totalitarian apparatus on the island, along with the unconditional release of all political prisoners and the restoration of fundamental human rights, there should be no U.S. unilateral concessions to the Castro regime.


The future of the island-nation lies not with the current failed, octogenarian rulers, but with the leaders of the growing pro-democracy movement. They, and not their oppressors, are worthy of receiving international recognition, financial resources and communications technology to carry out their heroic struggle. 


We pledge our continued support to them--the vanguard of the emerging civil society--and look forward to helping in the reconstruction of the island where we were born, but only when the Cuban people can enjoy the blessings of freedom we cherish and they deserve. 


SIGNATORIES OF “COMMITMENT TO FREEDOM” 


Manuel Jorge Cutillas, Fr. Chairman and CEO, BACARDI
Sergio Masvidal, Fr. Vice Chairman, AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK
Enrique Falla, Fr. EVP and CFO, DOW CHEMICAL
Eduardo Crews, Fr. President, Latin America, BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB
Emilio Alvarez-Recio, Fr. VP. Worldwide Advertising, COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
Néstor Carbonell, Fr. VP International Government Affairs, PEPSICO
Alberto Mestre, Fr. President, Venezuela, GENERAL MILLS
Rafael de la Sierra, Fr. VP International Coordination WARNER COMMUNICATIONS (now Time Warner)
Eugenio Desvernine, Fr. Senior EVP, REYNOLDS METALS
José R. Bou, Fr. VP Primary Products Operation, MARTIN MARIETTA ALUMINUM
Alberto Luzárraga, Fr. Chairman, CONTINENTAL BANK INTERNATIONAL
Remedios Diaz-Oliver, Fr. Director of U.S. WEST and BARNETT BANK
Leopoldo Fernández-Pujals, Chairman JAZZTEL; Founder of TELEPIZZA
Jorge Blanco, Fr. President & CEO, AMEX NICKEL CORPORATION.
Carlos Gutierrez, Fr. U.S. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Mel Martinez, Fr. U.S. SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Mother ends hunger strike after 19 days

School official guarantees physical safety of her daughter who had been threatened with rape by state security agents

Damaris Moya Portieles

Damaris Moya Portieles initiated a hunger strike on June 3, 2012 demanding that her 5-year old daughter, Lazara Contreras Moya, be kept safe. This was because state security agents made graphic rape threats to the mother concerning about her five year old daughter. The worse of the perpetrators was Eric Francis Aquino Yera.

State Security Agent Eric Francis Aquino Yera threatened mother that her 5 year old girl would be raped.

Today, June 22, 2012 she ended the hunger strike after the director of the education center Lazara attends said that she would guarantee her physical safety. Below, in Spanish, is an audio declaration by Damaris Moya Portieles outlining the circumstances that led her to end her hunger strike on day 19 followed by the precautionary measure emitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR):




PM 163/12 – Damaris Moya Portieles and daughter, Cuba

On June 12, 2012, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of Damaris Moya Portieles and her daughter, 5 years old, in Cuba. The request for precautionary measures alleges that Damaris Moya Portieles is a human rights defender, and that she had been deprived of her liberty several times as a result of her participation in demonstrations in her country. The request also alleges that on May 2, 2012, during a vigile organized for freedom in Cuba, agents of the Security police again deprived her of her liberty, beat her, and threatened with raping her daughter. The IACHR requested the State of Cuba to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the life and physical integrity of Damaris Moya Portiele and her daughter, to adopt the measures in consultation with the beneficiary and her representatives, and to inform on the actions taken to investigate the facts that led to the adoption of precautionary measures.

https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/precautionary.asp

Damaris Moya Portieles and her daughter Lazara Contreras Moya,