Time to overcome revolutionary icons of violence and hatred

We need to nonviolently confront them and take the offensive.

MLK Jr. poster on sale at Amazon.com

 Thor Halvorssen, the founder of The Human Rights Foundation, has written an open letter to Ted Marlow, the CEO of Urban Outfitters regarding their Che Guevara merchandise. It is an excellent analysis of why it is not only a bad marketing strategy but also immoral.

Aung San Suu Kyi T-Shirt by Cafe Press on Amazon

However, it is not only the promotion of a deceased mass killer who never renounced violence that is disturbing but the absence of positive icons such as Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Vaclav Havel, Aung San Suu Kyi and many others who made the world a better place using nonviolent means, respecting and defending human rights and dignity. It is troubling that some around the world want to celebrate a man who committed acts of mass violence that did not make things better but fail in honoring those did.

Mohandas Gandhi t-shirt on sale at Amazon

What kind of message is Urban Outfitters sending to the youth market?  Celebrating icons of violence while ignoring those who made contributions to humanity using nonviolent resistance is a disservice to the future.

Symbol of Polish Solidarity Movement

 In addition to boycotting Urban Outfitters which is a necessary but negative action one should also encourage taking positive action and purchasing posters and t-shirts to celebrate and market those heroes who have made the world a better place. Above and below are t-shirts and posters that can be purchased online that do just that. Time to go on the offensive with nonviolence. There are powerful icons of nonviolence that need to be remembered, honored and taught to new generations.

Hopefully, Urban Outfitters will reconsider promoting a hateful symbol and join in marketing icons who made a difference for the better. In the meantime the following are already available online.

Hunger Strike underway in Cuba raises moral and ethical considerations

"After feeling how my health has worsened due to spending several days on hunger strike, and reacting to what appeared in various media about the start date and the demand of the protest I want to clarify the following.
First: I started the hunger strike on Friday, September 7 at 6 pm and not on Monday, 10 as did other opposition activists after giving a press conference.

Second: My demand is the release of political prisoner Jorge Vázquez Chaviano, or failing that to give a satisfactory solution acceptable to him.  I am also protesting for the deplorable human rights situation in Cuba that passes through the policy of systematic persecution against my person which means in practice house arrest.

Third: For reasons of principle and not confiding on the existing health care system, controlled by the political police, I do not accept medical attention. From what follows above only in a state of unconsciousness, relatives and countrymen by their own initiative, motivated by humanitarian feelings, will surely transfer me to a health center." - Jorge Luis García Pérez "Antúnez" Message to Cubans inside and outside of Cuba

Jorge Luis García Pérez "Antúnez" on hunger strike

"We respect any person who goes on a hunger strike. That method of struggle is not ours. We're women who are never going to do it, and although we disapprove of it, we're going to give them all the moral and spiritual support we can." - Berta Soler, Leader of the Ladies in White Movement

This evening Bertha Antunez sat down and explained the reasons that a large group of Cubans have decided to take the unprecedented action of going on hunger strike to demand the freedom of an unjustly imprisoned compatriot. Among the activists who are now risking their lives is her brother, Jorge Luis García Pérez "Antúnez". She is extremely worried about her brother and the others who have resorted to this course of action.

"Antúnez" began the hunger strike at 6pm on September 7, 2012 and today marks nine days on hunger strike with his health in decline. There are several reasons that led Jorge Luis to take this drastic course of action and for so many others to join him:

An ongoing crackdown in which scores of activists have been harassed, terrorized, beaten and detained that his been intensifying along with a failure of the international press to report on it. In the month of August alone there were over 500 documented politically motivated arrests. In addition opposition leaders such as Oswaldo Paya and Laura Pollan have died under suspicious circumstances.

The escalation of violence led to the destruction of the home of nonviolent activist Misahel Valdés Díaz, who was also detained by State Security agents. His wife and child were also terrorized during the attack.

Finally, Jorge Vázquez Chaviano who was unjustly imprisoned while traveling to Havana to attend the Mass of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and sentenced to prison until September 9, 2012 was not released.

Jorge Vázquez Chaviano began his own hunger strike as September 9 gave way to September 10 and he had not been released. More than 20 others joined in during the following days including the dissident economist Marta Beatriz Roque. 

The Cuban Catholic Church has expressed its concerns regarding the hunger strikers stating that they are following events closely and praying for them. At the same time the Church spokesman has stated that the Church opposes hunger strikes as a form of auto-aggression even when it is in the defense of the right to that very life. This position was also held by the Church in Ireland with IRA hunger strikers in 1981. The Ladies in White also appear to hold this position.

The Cuban Church's position raises a logical question. It appears that hunger strikes are unacceptable under any circumstances even when it is in the defense of one's own life.  Now the Cathecism of the Catholic Church has a doctrine of "legitimate defense which states in part:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.⁶⁶

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.[...]

 If one's life is in danger, or that of a compatriot, and undertaking a hunger strike as a means to defend one's own life or the life of another although causing measurable harm to avoid a greater harm not morally justifiable? This is not to say that all hunger strikes are morally justifiable or well thought out but that at least in principle under certain circumstances some of them constitute a legitimate defense.



Nonviolence expert, Michael Nagler in an Introduction to Nonviolence filmed at the University of California at Berkeley in the fall of 2006 offered the following analysis on hunger strikes within a nonviolent context in the video above starting at 46 minutes and 38 seconds stating:
 

"This is not a case of suicide. You are not killing yourself. You are risking death. What you are doing is putting your life into the hands of another person." ... "You are not killing yourself but you are saying to the person that your behavior is so unacceptable that if you continue it its going to kill me. It is an extreme case of taking on the suffering that is in a situation." ...This is different from a threat because what you are saying to the person is "I am going to exhibit to you mirror back to you the ultimate consequences of what you are doing." ... "This is an act of truth. You are killing us - you are killing our people and I'm going to show you that you are doing it to awaken your conscience."...Thats why you have to be carrying on a conversation on a nonverbal level.

There are several questions that any individual contemplating the extreme action of going on hunger strike should contemplate. First, are there any other out of the over 198 nonviolent actions that can be taken that should be tried before resorting to this life risking action? Secondly, who are you trying to persuade into changing their behavior?  Do they care whether you live or die? Third, is this a life or death situation that requires placing your life on the line? Finally, can you succeed in achieving your objective.

Others have tried and failed whereas others have succeeded in using this tactic in Cuba under the current regime.  It is of utmost importance that activists considering this course of action to analyze their particular situation to determine the moral, ethical, and strategic soundness of such an extreme course of action. At the same time those who wish to question the soundness of their decisions must also take into account the circumstances that these human rights defenders confront in a totalitarian communist dictatorship that systematically violates human rights and dignity.

Amnesty International calls on Castro regime to explain itself

Cuban dissidents on hunger strike © ADALBERTO ROQUE/AFP/GettyImages

Cuba must say why they are holding Jorge Vázquez Chaviano or release him

by Amnesty International 

The Cuban authorities must either explain why they failed to release detainee Jorge Vázquez Chaviano as scheduled on 9 September or let him go immediately and unconditionally, Amnesty International said amid an ongoing hunger strike by 26 dissidents in solidarity with their colleague.

Vázquez Chaviano, who is a member of the organization “Central Opposition Coalition” (Coalición Central Opositora), was charged with “unlawful economic activities” and sentenced to 18 months “correctional work without internment” in March 2011.

He believed the sentence to be politically motivated and a means of punishing his dissident activities.

“The justice system in Cuba is highly arbitrary and unfair for those deemed to be dissidents, but the failure to release prisoners on completion of their sentence is unusual and this is a worrying development,” said Gerardo Ducos, Amnesty International's Cuba researcher.

“Unless the authorities are able to immediately explain on what grounds they have refused to release Jorge Vázquez Chaviano, Amnesty International calls on them to immediately and unconditionally release him, and to cease the harassment of his family.”

Vázquez Chaviano was arrested on 27 March this year when he tried to travel from his home in the province of Villa Clara to attend an open air mass said by Pope Benedict XVI in Havana, and was forced to serve the remaining six months of his sentence behind bars.

Since 9 September came and went, he is not believed to have been charged with a new offence or have been re-sentenced, nor has any reason been given by the authorities as to why he has not been released after completing his sentence. He is imprisoned at “Alambradas de Manacas” prison in Villa Clara Province.

Jorge’s wife and mother were detained along with several supporters on 10 September in their hometown of Sagua la Grande, Villa Clara Province, when they demonstrated for his release. His wife was held for 24 hours before being released and warned not to speak out publicly again.

Vázquez Chaviano began a hunger strike after hearing he would remain incarcerated and 26 other people across the island have since joined him, calling for his release and for greater civil and political freedoms in Cuba.

The group includes 67 year-old Martha Beatriz Pérez Roque, head of the Cuban Network of Community Communicators (Red Cubana de Comunicadores Comunitarios) and a former prisoner of conscience, who is reported to be seriously ill.

“Given the government’s control of the justice system and media, and the repression of public protest, the only recourse dissidents feel they have to make their voice heard is to go on hunger strike,” said Gerardo Ducos

Since 2010, two prisoners of conscience, Wilman Villar Mendoza and Orlando Zapata Tamayo have died in custody while on hunger strike, protesting their unfair incarceration.

Country: 

Cuba 

Region: 

Americas 

Issue: 

Detention 

International Justice 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/cuba-must-say-why-they-are-holding-jorge-v-zquez-chaviano-or-release-him-2012-09-14

Hugo Chavez shows his true colors: Venezuela’s break with regional human rights organizations

"This move is an affront to the victims of human rights violations and to future generations of Venezuelans who will no longer be able to access this regional body when their rights are not respected in their own country." - Guadalupe Marengo, Deputy Americas Programme Director at Amnesty International

Venezuela has denounced the American Convention on Human Rights,
blocking victims access to the Inter-American Court. © Zoë Tryon

Venezuela’s break with regional human rights court ‘an affront to victims’

by Amnesty International

The Venezuelan government’s decision to denounce the American Convention on Human Rights and therefore pull out of the Inter-American Court constitutes an affront to the victims of human rights violations, Amnesty International said. 

On Tuesday, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) José Miguel Insulza confirmed having received the Venezuelan government’s request to withdraw from the Convention and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights – which the OAS oversees – within a year. 

The move means victims of human rights violations in Venezuela will be barred from bringing complaints before the regional court. 

“This move is an affront to the victims of human rights violations and to future generations of Venezuelans who will no longer be able to access this regional body when their rights are not respected in their own country,” said Guadalupe Marengo, Deputy Americas Programme Director at Amnesty International. 

“Having access to an international body like the Inter-American Court is a right that all Venezuelans had up until now, but the government has decided to cut off that important lifeline.”

Leaving the Court

Promoting and protecting the human rights of all without discrimination is the cornerstone of the rule of law and allows states to ensure that all people can live with dignity, regardless of their gender, race, ethnic origin or any other condition. 

Regional and national human rights systems were created to guarantee everyone a route to pursue justice and reparation for human rights abuses when national justice systems have failed them. 

The regional human rights system – made up of the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights – is a necessary complement to national protection measures throughout the Americas. Over the years, thousands of victims and their relatives across the continent have seen it as their only chance to obtain justice after national justice systems have failed them. 

Venezuela’s Constitution currently guarantees all people the right to access to international bodies, but once the current government’s decision takes effect within a year, this route to justice will be blocked.  They will no longer have access to the Inter-American Court – the highest human rights body in the Americas. 

Amnesty International joins the OAS Secretary General and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in calling on Venezuela’s government to reconsider its decision. 

“The Venezuelan government must immediately review its decision to withdraw from the American Convention on Human Rights and show that it is truly committed to human rights,” said Marengo.

The organization notes that since Venezuela will remain a member of the OAS, it will still be subject to monitoring by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Background 

In December 2008 Venezuela’s Constitutional Court declared that a judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights could not be implemented and requested that the executive withdraw from the American Convention on Human Rights.  

Since then, there have been several announcements by authorities on withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. Amnesty International has repeatedly called upon Venezuela to honour its international and regional human rights obligations, and to remain as a signatory of the American Convention of Human Rights. 

Under the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights, state parties can opt to withdraw from the regional Court by denouncing the Convention, but such decisions take one year to take effect. Two other OAS members – Trinidad and Tobago and Peru – have made such a move, but Peru subsequently reconsidered and today is subject to the Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction.

En castellano.

President Jimmy Carter's Tragic Legacy

"Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuous revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions." - Ronald Wilson Reagan

Carter's normalization of  relations with Communist China is a tragic legacy

President Jimmy Carter has repeated his long standing position of arguing in favor of normalized relations with the dictatorship in Cuba that began during his presidency. Ironically when President Carter took steps to normalize relations with the dictatorship in Cuba while at the same time isolating the military junta in Argentina, it was Fidel Castro who responded by embracing the Argentine regime. Afterwards as a private citizen he has visited Cuba twice, first in 2002 and a second time in 2011. The former president has continued to seek normalized relations between the United States and the Castro regime. Until now he has failed in achieving that policy objective, but he did "succeed" in China. The case for maintaining economic sanctions on the Castro regime is sound of its own accord and the results of the Carter policy on China only serve to reinforce it.
 
President Carter normalized relations between Washington and Beijing on January 1, 1979. China's one child policy that systematically violates the reproductive rights of all Chinese was first applied in 1979. The conventional belief then with regards to the Soviet Union and China, as with Cuba now, was that normal relations would lead to a greater opening for human rights and a peaceful transition to democracy. The opposite has been the case. In the Soviet Union confrontation and economic isolation led to a peaceful implosion of the regime. In China the policy of trade and political engagement has led to a thriving economic system under Communist party control and modernization and expansion of both the military and police state to continue repressing the Chinese people.

Ten years after Carter succeeded in normalizing relations with the communist dictatorship in China that same regime on June 4, 1989 engaged in a massive crackdown killing thousands of Chinese students and workers who had been non-violently protesting in what became known as the Tiananmen Square massacre. One month later on July 4, 1989 George H.W. Bush sent a secret high level delegation to meet with the Chinese regime and join with them in celebrating American Independence while downplaying pro-forma criticisms made by the Administration. Candidate Bill Clinton would critique this de-linkage of human rights and commercial interests only to intensify the practice during his own presidency. This reached a symbolic low point in 1996 when the General responsible for the 1989 massacre was received at the Clinton White House with a 19 gun salute. The bipartisan consensus on China is one that all Americans should be ashamed of. It has not aided freedom in China but conspired against it.

On the same day that President Jimmy Carter was widely quoted on his desire to see improved relations with the dictatorship in Cuba the fruits of his normalized relations with communist China policy once again also made the news. Chinese students were forced to "intern" on an i-Phone production line six-days a week, 12 hours a day. Involuntary forced labor used to be called slavery but in today's Orwellian environment it is called an "internship" in China.

The result of engagement with China has not been the transformation of the Chinese dictatorship to democracy. Amnesty International’s 2012 report states: "Executions were estimated to number in the thousands. However, statistics on death sentences and executions remained classified." The same report further stated that "Fearful of a protest movement inspired by events in the Middle East and North Africa, in February the authorities unleashed one of the harshest crackdowns on political activists, human rights defenders and online activists since the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations. Harassment, intimidation, arbitrary and illegal detention, and enforced disappearances intensified against government critics." Finally, Amnesty International reported that "China’s economic strength during the global financial crisis increased the country’s leverage in the domain of global human rights – mostly for the worse."

The events of June 1989 when thousands of students were butchered by Chinese troops for peacefully demonstrating for democracy, human rights, and an end to government corruption dramatically revealed the failure of the policy of engagement. Surprisingly, economic engagement with the butchers of Beijing was not even suspended but intensified. Twenty three years have passed since the Tiananmen Square massacre but according to Amnesty International, China continues its systemic suppression of dissent, which includes arbitrary arrests, torture, unfair trials, religious repression, and executions." 

Nevertheless former President Carter in his trip report on his December 6-15, 2011 visit to communist China stated "In general, we were impressed with the enormous vitality of the Chinese economy, rapid improvements in commerce, transportation, education, and international influence, concern about election year 'China bashing' from 2012 U.S. candidates, pride in 40 years of peaceful engagement with their neighbors, and quiet self-assurance about China's future role in global affairs."

Recalling that President Jimmy Carter's made human rights a cornerstone of his foreign policy the aftermath of his normalization of relations with China and his continued blindness towards the harm it has and continues to do not only in China but around the world is a tragic legacy.

It is not the policy on Cuba that needs to be overhauled but U.S. foreign policy in China that has been disastrous both for the Chinese people and the United States.

Carter is advocating normalizing relations with the Castro regime