Cuba attempts to "shame" Canada

Article: Cuba Joins Iran to Shame Canada at UN
By: Stephen Edwards
Published: November 24, 2006.

We were talking in class about how part of the purpose of human rights discourse was to put into words violations that are thought to be universal. Part of the use of the discourse is to work as sort of a framework to measure entities and nations, and hence be able to “shame” them into curbing perceived human rights violations.

Well, its looks like Canada is being shamed from one its Latin American friends, Cuba. According to the article, Cuba has joined Iran in shaming Canada for its treatment of aboriginals. As the author points out: “Human rights resolutions at the world body are meant to ''name-and-shame'' countries that abuse their citizens, but whether they pass, they often reveal allegiances on the international stage.”

This topic was brought up in class, as some students pointed out that countries will only pursue criticism where there can be some reciprocal benefit, as was the case of the fumbling around between the U.S. and Britain in the Arbenz debacle. Regarding the case in today's article, it is quite obvious Cuba is making a move to get closer to Iran, perhaps with the idea that there is more to gain with the “guateconería” with Iran than Canada.

I am going to take the opportunity to deflect the argument here. Though I do acknowledge there is much work to do with aboriginal rights and relations in this country, I am going to change the subject. Deflecting the argument is usually a Cuban tactic to ignore accusations of human rights abuses. For example, if a Cuban official is confronted with a question about the lack of democracy within Cuba, the subject will be changed to the flaws in the U.S. system, and dictatorships the U.S. has supported in the past. Point taken, but conveniently the question about Cuba is never answered. It never has been, and it never will. Unless, of course, Cuba does actually become a democracy.

This is an astounding, if not strange, case of hypocrisy from Cuba, given the unexpected shot at Canada - - a country that has repeatedly voted against the U.S. embargo, historically maintained strong diplomatic ties, and allowed millions of vacations (not hyperbole here) from its citizens at a time that Cuba has badly needed the tourist dollars. I feel that many Canadians have been soft with Cuba, as you may have read with one example I pointed out in October. There seems to be too much focus on the embargo, imperialism, and the “5 Heroes” case, rather than defending the rights of the ordinary Cuban in relation with their own government. I don’t have time to make an extensive list, but I’ll briefly mention some violations in Cuba that will make the hypocrisy of Cuba’s decision quite clear.

1. Cuba is not democratic. There may be some democracy at some local levels, but nationally Cuba is a dictatorship. There are no opposing parties, no opposing platforms, no alternative viewpoints objectively reported in the media. The results of the opposition performance in elections is not reported because there is no opposition.

2. Media: controlled by the state. There is virtually no criticism or freedom of expression published in the national newspapers or on television - - both of which are state controlled.

3. Cubans have little right to earn a living. All business is controlled by the state. To operate any business, you must seek approval from the government. Private salsa lessons? Illegal. Spanish tutor? Only with permission. Everything is controlled, up to washing clothes for tourists. Many people do get away with private business, since the informal economy has penetrated every segment of society. However, ultimately the government controls it, and people are under constant threat of paying fines, confiscations of property, or jail time for “offences.” There have been period crackdowns, and many people have paid a price for simply earning a very modest living by our standards. Even countries with worse human rights records than Cuba generally manage to leave people alone that can scrape out their own living.

4. Freedom of movement: Cubans need permission to enter or leave their country. There are also restrictions of movement within the country. For example, “The Ladies in White,” a group of wives that are protesting the political imprisonment of their husbands, won the Sakharov Prize in Europe for freedom of thought. The Cuban government refused them the exit visas.

5. Freedom of association: communication between Cubans and foreigners is restricted. Cubans can be arbitrarily arrested for suspicion of prostitution or a number of supposed offences connected with associating with foreigners. Cubans are often faced with harassment from the police while with tourists, for example their ID is checked and their name run through the radio. No provocation is needed other than “suspicion.” To understand the scope of this harrassment, a friend was stopped while walking with me one time. Who's my friend? He is a classically trained musician, speaks 4 languages, and his father is a composer who works with some of the many legends of Cuban music. In Cuba it does not matter. Anyone can be harrassed.

Anyways, the list could go on. These violations I’ve talked about have nothing to do with “imperialism” or Bush. This is all Cuba’s own doing. All of these rights being violated are outlined in the U.N. declaration. I want to reiterate that I think native rights are an important issue in Canada. However, I justify deflecting the argument in this case because the hypocrisy is on such a grand scale that I feel it merits no other response.



tag: last301