Letter to MP regarding reply from 'Baroness Scotland' who is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to a letter requesting that the UK government did not support the Czech motion against Cuba at the UN Convention on Human Rights.
I would like you to convey my concerns about her response, and about the government’s subsequent and astonishing co-sponsorship of the motion at Geneva.
Firstly the baroness’s censure of the illegal US blockade is to be welcomed: this unilateral and aggressive act has been condemned in the UN general assembly year after year, with only the US client states of Israel and the Marshall Islands voting with the US on the last occasion. Sadly there is every danger that this blockade will intensify with the dubious election of the far right regime now on Capitol Hill.
The baroness also acknowledges Cuba’s exemplary economic and social legislation and the rights of its people in these areas. Cuba is indeed one of the countries that according to the UN Human Development Report has eradicated poverty. This is something that can be said neither for Britain nor the US, and perhaps it is no surprise that the US has steadfastly opposed the inclusion of economic rights into the CHR’s agenda.
The baroness cites Amnesty International’s concerns. However, while their concerns on Cuba focus on the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and on the "dissidents" in jail who they consider to be prisoners of conscience, they are much more concerned about serious violations (e.g. assassinations of civilians by the armed forces) in several other Latin American countries which the USA has invited to participate in their "free and democratic" free trade area. Cuba of course cites these greater abuses in its own defence.
To put this into context, Amnesty has thoroughly condemned human rights abuses in the US too, which it regards as systematic in nature, particularly affecting the black population. Certain states in the US even routinely execute mentally disordered and intellectually disabled alleged offenders. For the US to give lessons on human rights is perhaps even odder than a baroness giving lessons on democracy!
Human rights abuses in countries such as Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Colombia, Russia or China are several orders of magnitude worse than those in Cuba, yet no other country has been subjected to this annual harassment at the CHR. I do think we need to ask why our own government, along with other EEC countries, gives support to the hypocritical US position while taking an independent line on trade etc.
It is also worth noting that the TUC regards Cuban unions as independent from the state, and that despite CIA sourced mythology, gays have more rights in Cuba than in most American countries, including the US.
I was appalled at what I can only see as a craven attempt by the UK government to ingratiate itself with the irresponsible criminal regime now ruling the US – its co-sponsorship of the US inspired Czech motion. Yes, the Czech republic where the police collude with fascist groups in racist aggression against Roma and other minorities.
None of this is to suggest that Cuba is perfect. Despite many achievements it has problems. Prison conditions have been criticised, although this is also the case here, and in the US where the prisons have been compared to a slave based industry, or countries like democratic Brasil where things are even worse. Maybe the system is too constraining on political expression and participation, although many Cubans believe they have more genuine political participation through the various institutions of Cuban direct democracy than the citizens of representative democracies who get to vote every four or five years. Maybe the society is too militaristic, although this is hardly surprising in the context of unrelenting aggression and destabilisation from its neighbour and would be colonist. Perhaps the media is not free, but again did not a similar situation prevail in the representative democracies in wartime, and if Cuba is not at war, it is certainly in a state of siege, and has been for 41 years. Let the US cease all aggressive acts, allow free travel for its citizens (some democracy!), and allow Cuba to develop independently, and we could see whether or not the Cuban system is inherently constraining of its people’s freedom of expression, association, and so on.
Finally, I was surprised to see the baroness’s final words, that looked forward to ‘further economic liberalisation in Cuba’. If this means the unregulated and rapacious free market among unequals that sinks millions of Latin Americans into desperate poverty (and the data on Mexico since the privatisations, reversal of land reforms, and NAFTA speak for themselves), then the Cubans would be very well advised to beware their European interlocutors.