Update on Sirley Ávila León

Good news and bad news

Sirley Ávila León back in Cuba

Communications were blocked and delayed. This generated a call to action on behalf of  Sirley Ávila León from this blog and over twitter. The phone system in Cuba is run by the dictatorship and has demonstrated that it can block certain numbers and texts from being reached. Thanks to an alternative channel of communication she was able to make contact. However the messages were delayed for several hours, only arriving this morning.

Sirley Ávila León was able to get to Las Tunas and found that her home is being occupied by others, and she is currently staying at her mother's home in the same city. According to Sirley,
neighbors have been intimidated by the political police and her attackers have been threatening her family to "finish the job they started" in the first attack. That attack was carried out by Osmany Carrión, and his wife on May 24, 2015, who appear to have been directed by the political police.

Thanks to all those who have raised awareness on her plight and ask that the vigilance be maintained. Cuba Decide published a message on Instagram from Sirley a few days before she left, and below is her statement from yesterday.

Sirley Avila Leon returned home to Cuba today and has not been heard from

A call to action, out of concern for the safety of Cuban human rights defender and machete attack survivor unaccounted for in Cuba.



Today, September 7, 2016 after six months receiving medical care in Miami, Florida machete attack victim and human rights defender Sirley Avila Leon boarded American Airlines flight 1359 to Holguin, Cuba to return home to Las Tunas.

The flight arrived in Frank País Airport in Holguín, Cuba at 4:13pm. She was on the second commercial passenger flight since 1961 by American Airlines to this location.  She is overdue in calling and the likelihood is that she has been retained, or detained by the political police.

Prior to boarding her flight she recorded the above brief message at Miami International Airport where she expressed her concerns about the plight of her son, and what she may encounter on her return home. The video was made in case she was not heard from three hours after the plane had landed.

Five days ago on September 2, 2016 over her twitter account Sirley Avila Leon stated:

"Return to Cuba and want to make clear that for several days I have been unable to communicate with my son. Whatever happens to him I hold the Castros accountable. I know of the Castros capability to lie and fabricate crimes and that is why I hold them responsible for what happens to me and my son."

 In addition to receiving medical care, in order to regain limited mobility, Sirley Avila Leon also spoke out on the human rights situation in Cuba and the circumstances surrounding the machete attack on May 24, 2015 that changed her life forever and how she was denied adequate medical afterwards. The danger to her life necessitated a precautionary measure from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on September 2, 2015. This necessitated her visit to the United States on a medical visa on March 8, 2016.

Dr. Manuel Alzugaray, of the Miami Medical Team

She gave her testimony on many occasions and the most complete accounts can be found in Spanish at Voces de Cuba (Voices of Cuba), and in English at the Huffington World Post, Victims of Communism and finally in her testimony before Congress on July 13, 2016 and afterwards The Daily Signal.The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation produced a short video with English subtitles that provides an overview of what happened to her.


There is reason to fear that due to her outspokenness the Castro regime may want to take reprisals against her and her family, perhaps using criminal third parties to try and finish what they started back on May 24, 2015.

Although it may be jumping the gun (better to be safe than sorry) people of good will should make her plight known and ask Cuban government officials at the embassy in their respective country what has happened to Sirley Avila Leon?

Please help her.

Sirley Avila Leon

Human rights organization expresses concern over treatment of human rights defenders in Cuba

Human rights defenders targeted by regime in Cuba

 

  

IACHR Concerned over Treatment of Human Rights Defenders in Cuba

 

September 6, 2016

Washington, D.C. – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expresses its profound concern over the treatment of human rights defenders in Cuba and specifically, allegations of arbitrary restrictions to their freedom of movement, incidents of criminalization, and threats to their rights to life and personal integrity. 

According to information received by the IACHR, on August 12, 2016, Laritza Diversent, Director of the Cubalex Legal Information Center (Centro de Información Legal Cubalex), was detained for approximately two hours upon arrival from Geneva, where she presented a report on freedom of expression before the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. During this detention, all of the materials she brought with her from Geneva were confiscated by the authorities. Laritza Diversent is a beneficiary of IACHR Precautionary Measure 96-15. Of utmost concern to the IACHR is that this is not the first incident of its kind: other information received indicates that Laritza Diversent was detained without explanation prior to boarding a plane to the United States to, among other activities, participate in a hearing before the IACHR during its 157° period of sessions and that, upon her return, some of the materials she brought with her were seized by customs officials.  
 
In addition, according to publicly available information, four Cuban opposition activists were prevented from traveling to Puerto Rico to attend the Second National Cuban Conference (Segundo Encuentro Nacional Cubano) on August 12-14, 2016. Among them were Leticia Ramos, human rights defender and member of the Ladies in White (Damas de Blanco), and Ivan Hernandez Carrillo, journalist and Secretary General of the Confederation of Independent Workers of Cuba (Confederación de Trabajadores Independientes de Cuba). They are beneficiaries of IACHR Precautionary Measures 264-13 and 245-13, respectively.

 According to this information, Leticia Ramos was reportedly detained by the police on August 9, 2016 for over three hours in a completely closed police car, following an accident in which she alleges that another police car collided with her motorcycle causing her injury. Later, she was allegedly taken back to her house, where she was threatened with criminal proceedings should she attempt to leave, and she remained under State surveillance until at least August 12, 2016. Leticia Ramos participated in the same hearing as Laritza Diversent held before the IACHR in April 2016 during its 157° period of sessions and has since reported a dramatic increase in repression against her, including preventing her from traveling abroad for work on other occasions in the wake of the hearing. She alleges that during her interrogation on August 9, 2016, a State security agent threatened to kill her, should she try to leave the island again.

With regard to Ivan Hernandez Carrillo, the Commission received information indicating that he remains under parole (licencia extrapenal), as a result of the “Black Spring” in March 2003, when Cuba cracked down on 75 political dissidents and jailed them. According to this information, on July 31, 2016, upon his return to Habana, Cuba, following an authorized trip abroad, Ivan Hernandez was violently beaten, arrested, and detained until the following day in the airport. 

As the Commission established in its Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2006) and its Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2011), respect for and guarantee of the right to personal integrity and the right to life are directly related to the free exercise of the activity of defending and promoting human rights. As such, States have the obligation to not interfere with the enjoyment of these rights and to act reasonably to prevent threats, attacks, and harassment carried out against human rights defenders. In these same reports, the IACHR has further emphasized that human rights defenders should enjoy adequate protection to ensure that they will not be subject to improper interference with the exercise of their freedom of movement and residence. The IACHR has indicated that the State’s obligations in this regard include, among others: refraining from restricting, by any means, the work in which defenders may collect field information; and facilitating visas for access to another jurisdiction for those cases in which human rights defenders must travel in the course of their work.

In its recent report, Criminalization of the Work of Human Rights Defenders (2015), the Commission has established that the State – by act or omission – may be held internationally responsible for failing to protect the human rights of defenders in situations where State agents or private persons improperly use criminal law to hamper their legitimate activities in the defense of human rights. Accordingly, the IACHR has recommended that States ensure that the authorities and private persons do not use the punitive power of the State to harass human rights defenders and that the use and application of precautionary measures different from pretrial detention are adequately regulated and are prevented from being used to hinder the work of defenders.

With regard to the close proximity between the treatment received by the two women defenders, Laritza Diversent and Leticia Ramos, and their participation before the UN or the IACHR, the IACHR underscores that human rights bodies are charged to monitor Cuba’s track record in implementing its universal and regional human rights obligations. In the past, the Commission has expressed its concern and repudiation over acts of retaliation against human rights defenders who seek to avail themselves of the protections and spaces offered by human rights bodies. The IACHR reminds Cuba that Article 63 of its Rules of Procedure establishes that States “shall grant the necessary guarantees to all the persons who attend a hearing or who in the course of a hearing provide information, testimony or evidence of any type to the Commission,” and they may not carry out reprisals against these persons because of their statements or expert opinions given before the Commission.

Based on the above, Cuba is expected to respect and defend the participation of rights activists in proceedings before human rights bodies, and the IACHR warns the State that any act taken to thwart this engagement directly contradicts international human rights law. The IACHR further calls on Cuba to immediately cease the targeting of human rights defenders – in particular, Laritza Diversent, Leticia Ramos, and Ivan Hernandez Carrillo, or any other members of the organizations to which they belong – and to ensure that they can carry out their human rights work and cooperate freely and safely with human rights mechanisms without fear of intimidation or reprisals and without improper restrictions on their right to freedom of movement. Human rights defenders are an essential pillar for the strengthening and consolidation of democracies and the rule of law, since the purpose that motivates their work involves society in general and seeks to benefit society.

A principal, autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IACHR derives its mandate from the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission has a mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region and acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this area. The Commission is composed of seven independent members who are elected in an individual capacity by the OAS General Assembly and who do not represent their countries of origin or residence.

En castellano 

Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and ally of free Cubans

Requiescat in pace

August 15, 1924 – September 5, 2016

Phyllis Schlafly, American constitutional lawyer, founder of the Eagle Forum, and a long time conservative political activist passed away yesterday at age 92. She was a conservative icon who strode across the political scene for more than sixty years shaking up the consensus on political, cultural and foreign policy questions that on more than one occasion altered the status quo. One constant theme that she touched on for five decades was her defense of a free Cuba.

On April 9, 2015 Phyllis Schlafly offered the following critical analysis of the Obama administration's new Cuba policy.

Without the approval of the American people or even of Congress, President Obama made the unilateral decision to normalize relations with Cuba. His decision is bad for freedom and an outright concession to Communist tyranny, for which we got absolutely nothing in return, either for ourselves or for the Cuban people.

America has always been the beacon of hope for oppressed people all over the world. Obama’s decision makes it look like we have abandoned our support and encouragement for freedom. Obama’s decision certainly does not support freedom. Instead, it rewards tyranny. Communist Cuba will not have to give up any of its dictatorial policies in order to be recognized by America.

This sends a bad message to the world. It appears to say that our new policy will be to help dictators even though they refuse to reform human rights. This decision is an offense to the Cuban people who have been hoping that their country, with America’s help, will one day be free. Alas, Obama’s decision financially supports the current Communist dictatorship and gives it access to American dollars and economic aid without any concessions whatsoever for freedom.

We could have demanded, for example, free speech, the legalization of other political parties, and the immediate stoppage of terrorist activities. This decision was made by Obama unilaterally without any discussion or debate by Congress. This decision is bad for America, bad for Cuba, and bad for freedom all over the world. It is inconsistent with American principles and policies.

On the Cuba question Phyllis Schlafly was always ahead of the curve foreseeing how U.S. policy would perpetuate the Castro regime.  At the same time she was calling for a policy of liberation in Cuba. Following the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis she observed that “Cuba is now the headquarters of the Communist conspiracy in the Western hemisphere... Our policy should be to liberate Cuba." In 1964 Phyllis looked back at the legacy of the Kennedy Administration taking it to task for capitulating to the Soviet Union and abandoning the goal of a free Cuba:

"the Kennedy administration presented the Cuban crisis to the American people as a great victory and as evidence that we made Khrushchev back down! - whereas the truth is that the deal was a defeat for the United States, binding us to give up our bases in Turkey and Italy, guarantee Castro against any invasion, and accept Khrushchev’s word on how many missiles he withdrew."

When the mainstream media was demonizing Cuban American during the Elian affair in 2000 Phyllis Schlafly acknowledged the mother's sacrifice for her son to live in freedom and made the case as follows:

The mother of six-year-old Elian Gonzalez sacrificed her life so that her son could grow up in America. Her dying wish, according to a Cuban man who survived for two days on an inner tube, was that Elian could reach the United States and freedom. A reporter for the socialist Madrid newspaper El Pais investigated and learned that Elian's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, had wanted Elian to go to America. Elian's relatives in Florida know very well that Elian is far better off in free America than in Communist Cuba where people are denied the everyday liberties we take for granted, including freedoms of speech, travel, and education.

One person, however, disagrees: Fidel Castro, whose apparatchiks no doubt "persuaded" Mr. Gonzalez to change his story. Elian's escape, like all defections, is an acute embarrassment to Castro. Communist suppression of the right to travel has long demonstrated the inhumanity of its system. The Berlin Wall, guarded by sharpshooters ordered to kill anyone who attempted to escape, symbolized the terror of Communism for an entire generation.

Flight that risks death constitutes the ultimate repudiation of Communist regimes and is often followed by vindictive attempts at retaliation by the humiliated dictator. KGB files newly opened to the West are full of examples.

[...]

Like all dictators, Castro is used to getting his way. He deliberately raised the political stakes of this controversy to the point where Elian Gonzalez is unlikely to have a normal life if he were returned to Cuba. The arguments about father's rights and family unity are phony when it comes to Elian's predicament. If U.S. authorities send Elian back to Cuba, it won't be to Elian's father; it will mean sending him back to be paraded around as a Castro trophy and raised, perhaps in a daycare center, to be a good Communist. The only persons the United States has forcibly returned to Cuba are criminals, and Elian surely is not a criminal. Does anyone believe that, if Elian's mother had died in the act of throwing her son over the Berlin Wall that we would have forcibly returned her boy to East Germany?

The mystery is why Clinton has sided with Castro. Perhaps his corporate friends are salivating over the potential for investments in tourism, gambling and other industries in Cuba where forty years of Communism have depressed the economy to the point where the ultimate luxury is a 1956 Chevrolet. Perhaps the Clinton Administration considers deporting Elian as necessary to appease Castro and facilitate open trade relations. Based on Clinton's policies toward Communist China, "follow the money" is usually a good explanation of his foreign policy. 

The first time I saw Phyllis Schlafly was at Florida International University on January 29, 1988 was when she was debating Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who defended "Jane Roe" pseudonym for Norma Leah McCorvey in the case that legalized abortion in the United States: Roe versus Wade. 
Schlafly was brilliant in her defense of the pro-life issue and leftists in the audience hated her with a passion.

Five years later in 1993, as president of Young Americans for Freedom at FIU successfully lobbied student activities to bring Phyllis Schlafly to speak at Florida International University. FIU Yafers took her out to dinner prior to the lecture. At the university lecture itself, I had the honor of introducing the conservative icon. She was a gracious guest and delivered an excellent lecture.

Years later met Phyllis Schlafly once again at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington DC she signed a copy of her book, A Choice Not an Echo and was once again friendly and approachable.  Over the internet, all kinds of leftists are slandering and libeling this great lady now that she cannot defend herself, but we Cuban Americans should honor her not only for her patriotic defense of America but also for her steadfast truth telling on Cuba and advocacy for Cuban freedom.

FIU YAF founder Craig Herrero, Phyllis Schlafly, Cesar Vasquez, John Suarez (1993)

Nonviolent resistance in Cuba and Venezuela: Case against violent flanks

 "Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it."  Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., Oslo (1964)
 

"I want to denounce North America  for the manipulation of the Venezuelan Opposition"

Carlos Alberto Montaner has written an essay that asks an important question: "Do massive marches serve a purpose?" which also analyses the differences between the Venezuelan and Cuban democratic oppositions in their respective countries:

In Cuba, the opposition was liquidated by gunfire in the first five years of the dictatorship. There was resistance, but the authorities killed some 7,000 people and jailed more than 100,000. Two decades later, in the late 1970s, when the cage had been hermetically shut, they began to release them. The Castros have held Cuban society in their fist for half a century now. The Soviet KGB and the East German Stasi taught them how to lock the padlock. Today, Raúl has perfected his repressive strategy. It was the one the Chavists futilely tried to use in Venezuela.

The Venezuelan opposition holds on precariously in a virtual zone of the state apparatus. They are mayors, governors or deputies. They hold posts but neither power nor a budget. Chavism has deprived them of resources and authority, although, because Chavism emerged from a democratic setup, it has not been easy for it to build a cage. According to surveys, the Chavists are opposing 80 percent of the population, including a good portion of the D and E sectors — that is, the poorest.

Both in Cuba and in Venezuela the democratic opposition in its vast majority have chosen to pursue a nonviolent strategy, but their respective starting points are radically different. In Cuba the regime arrived in power through a violent revolution replacing a dictator, while in Venezuela the regime took power through the ballot box. Both sought to install totalitarianism, but in the case of Venezuela the residue of democracy has made it more difficult. Another factor is that in Cuba the opposition to the regime during the first seven years was a violent resistance with guerillas in the Escambray region. Despite their courage they where either exterminated or imprisoned as Montaner describes above.

However, it was the violent nature of this resistance that made it easier for the regime to consolidate its totalitarian rule and "hermetically" seal the island, but less than a decade later a nonviolent alternative arose with the founding of the Cuban Committee for Human Rights on January 28, 1976. 



University Academics Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth in their 2008 study "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic on Nonviolent Conflict" compared the outcomes of 323 nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 and there study suggests “that nonviolent campaigns are more likely than violent campaigns to succeed in the face of brutal repression.” 

This is why Fulgencio Batista's authoritarian regime (1952 - 1958) was more susceptible to being violently overthrown, because it was less brutal than the Castro regime (1959 - present) that followed it. However, the Castro regime though able to systematically exterminate violent resistance has been unable to do the same with its nonviolent adversaries.

Meanwhile in Venezuela the opposition from the beginning decided to pursue nonviolent resistance because it had the hindsight of the successes of nonviolence in Eastern Europe, Chile, the Philippines and South Africa in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

Montaner's essay makes the following argument and analysis that calls for further reflection :

Nevertheless, the opposition lacks the muscle needed to force Maduro’s overthrow and the system’s replacement. In general, the oppositionists are peaceful people, trained for 40 years in the sweet exercise of electoral democracy. What could they do? They could march. Bang on pots and pans. Stage peaceful protests. It was the only way to express their opposition in the desperate situation in which they found themselves.

They could fill the public squares in the manner of Gandhi and Luther King, but against an adversary much more unscrupulous than the Anglo-Saxons. They have done so, dozens of times. It was a civilized way to confront totalitarian harassment. The people who kill, the scoundrels, the organized criminals are on the side of Chavism.

The Venezuelan opposition is being led by a student movement that has a moral authority that traditional political parties no longer have. It was the moral bankruptcy of the political parties in Venezuela which paved the way for Chavez in the first place. The student movement studied strategic nonviolence and carried out successful nonviolent campaigns over the past decade. This upset the Chavistas who attacked Gene Sharp, and the Albert Einstein Institution accusing both of being agents of subversion for being nonviolent.

Perhaps the Chavistas and their Castro regime handlers understand something that Montaner missed in his analysis:  The opposition doesn't lack the muscle to overthrow Maduro but the strategic plan and tactical creativity to replace the current regime with massive popular support they already have. On September 1, 2016 in Caracas the opposition was able to mobilize over a million Venezuelans while the Maduro regime could only mobilize a small fraction of that number.

The implication that a nonviolent struggle against the Anglo-Saxons would be easier because they are more scrupulous than the Maduro regime doesn't hold up under greater scrutiny.  Non-violent resistance movements successfully challenged regimes equally as unscrupulous as Maduro's in East Germany, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Nonviolence not only proved successful against communist regimes in Eastern Germany but also against Nazism. German housewives carried out a successful nonviolent campaign against the Nazi regime in Germany in 1943 taking to Rosenstrasse (Rose St.) to rescue their Jewish husbands.

Despite the accomplishments of nonviolent democratic resistance movements worldwide and in Cuba and Venezuela there has also been a temptation in some quarters to embrace the dubious idea that a nonviolent movement could have a "violent flank" and that this "diversity of tactics" would somehow speed up democratic change.

The example of Syria, where a nonviolent movement made incredible gains only to have a violent flank emerge out of defecting army units, ostensibly to defend nonviolent activists from the violent Assad regime, should serve as a warning. The belief, in some quarters, was that this was inevitable and would speed up the victory over the Syrian dictatorship. The result was just the opposite. Assad's regime was able to consolidate itself and the body count of the conflict exploded and radically violent elements overtook the violent resistance.

"Violent flanks" and the use of the so-called "diversity of tactics" reduces mobilization and decreases the probability of success for a resistance movement. Strategic thinker Gene Sharper put it succinctly when he said: "using violence is a stupid decision."

This would explain why both the Castro and Maduro regime's manufacture evidence and constantly accuse nonviolent activists of being violent ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. First and most importantly if the charges are believed it helps to reduce popular mobilization against these regimes which is the greatest threat to their power. Secondly, it raises questions that can impact international solidarity and support. Third, it allows these regimes to infiltrate agents to carry out violent acts that de-legitimize the movement placing it on the defensive in damage control mode.

However there is a not-so secret tactic that democracies are largely immune to but that is fatal to the most repressive dictatorships. This weapon is difficult to wield, but incredibly powerful: humor.