Absolutely Perplexing

I like the Oxbloggers for the most part, although from time to time I find myself really disagreeing with them. I appreciate their thoughtfulness and genuine interest in the rest of the world, something often sorely lacking in my fellow Americans.

This post by Patrick Belton, however, has me perplexed. He links to an excellent article in the Financial Times in which the author and his wife posed as foreign tourists picking up hitchhikers and talked with them free of Cuba's Stasi-like police state apparatus. He then proceeds to use the article to bash Amnesty International and an article in the Yale Herald calling for an end to the travel ban and embargo:

This should be required reading for the misguided collegiate fans of the regime, along with Human Rights Watch's extensive documentation of Cuba's repression of its people (including congressional testimony last month by OxBlog's friend Tom Malinowski, a Rhodes scholar from 1989) Although in its report on the latest wave of brutal political repression, Amnesty International curiously spends most of its words playing for the gallery and attacking the U.S. embargo and (quote) the "war on terror" - their scare quotes. (Amnesty's bias against actually looking at countries that repress their people, and instead concentrating with increasing exclusivity solely on criticizing the United States, has been well documented - a sad end to an organization which once stood for human rights.)

Bravo for the FT for, unlike Amnesty, actually going there - and speaking with people who actually live under the regime. [Links in original]

Let me address the issue about the Yale Herald first. They simply called for an end to the embargo and the travel ban. If that makes them a fan of the regime, then I suppose William F. Buckley is as well, along with 59 US Senators, 338 Congressional Representatives and all the major dissidents in Cuba must also be "fans of the regime." That's simply ridiculous.

The Human Rights Watch congressional testimony Patrick cites also criticizes the embargo and travel ban:

But it seems to us that any American policy designed to promote human rights in another country has to meet two basic tests to be worthy of continuation. First, is the policy more likely to be effective than the alternatives? Second, does it advance the interests and speak to the needs of those struggling to defend human rights in the country concerned? After 40 years, it's clear that the all-out embargo against Cuba fails both tests.

Many of the dissidents struggling for change inside Cuba want to see the embargo eased, including the writer Raul Rivero and the activist Hector Palacios Ruiz, who were sentenced, respectively, to 20 and 25 years in prison in April, as well as Oswaldo Paya, the leader of the Varela Project. Refusing to heed those who risk everything for freedom in Cuba is senseless. It would be as if the United States had taken steps to defend liberty in the old Soviet empire that were categorically opposed by Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, and Vaclav Havel.

Leading Cuban dissidents understand that the embargo helps Fidel Castro's cause, not theirs. Because it is indiscriminate, rather than targeted, it enables the Cuban government to shift blame to the United States for the Cuban people's suffering. Because it isolates the Cuban people from the world, it makes it easier for the Cuban government to control what they hear, see and know. Because it is bitterly opposed by most nations, it enables the Cuban government to divide the international community, leading, ironically, to less international pressure on Fidel Castro, not more.

At the same time, a relaxation or end to the embargo would not, by itself, be an effective strategy for promoting change in Cuba. We need to be clear-eyed about this, as well: The Cuban government isn't going to stop locking up dissidents just because American tourists have joined the Canadians sunning themselves on Cuba's beaches, or because American CEO's have joined the Europeans signing contracts with Fidel Castro. There does need to be carefully targeted, multilateral pressure on the Cuban government, or Cuba's dissidents won't have the space to fight for change. We need a middle ground between unquestioning engagement with the Castro government and an all-or-nothing approach that plays into Fidel Castro's hands.

All sides in the Cuba policy debate need to ask themselves: What does Castro fear most from the United States? It is not the continuation of the embargo, or its demise. It is the prospect that the United States might someday agree with allies in Latin America and Europe on an effective common strategy for defending the rights of the Cuban people.

I certainly agree with every word of that testimony - and apparently so do a number of members of congress. Yet Patrick then criticizes Amnesty International for what he claims to be "Amnesty International curiously spend[ing] most of its words playing for the gallery and attacking the U.S. embargo and (quote) the "war on terror" - their scare quotes." The fact is a word count of the report shows that out of 26,722 words in that one report (out of several that AI has recently released on Cuba), 2,729 deal with the USA, a little more than 10%. If Patrick had bothered to read AI's report more carefully he would have noticed that 13,429 words - more than half of the entire report - represented individual profiles of the cases of the 75 dissidents arrested. (ed. note: My thanks, by the way, to the word count function in Microsoft Word)

As for the "increasing exclusivity solely on criticizing the United States", this must be a fantasy. I get Actions from AI every month as well as actions on their stop torture campaign. Very few seem to involve the US and most of those that do are concerned with the death penalty. Also, one tendentious screed by Jonathan Last does not constitute "well documented" in my book and I doubt if that would pass muster much of anywhere else.

Finally, the most truly bizarre comment is Belton's last comment: "Bravo for the FT for, unlike Amnesty, actually going there - and speaking with people who actually live under the regime."

What does Belton propose AI do? Sneak into Cuba to conduct human rights inspections? In this summary in their 2002 report Human Rights Watch made the following observation about access to Cuba by NGO's dealing with human rights:

International human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch were barred from conducting fact-finding investigations on the island. Cuba was also one of the few countries in the world, and the only one in the Western Hemisphere, to deny the International Committee of the Red Cross access to its prisons.

The Castro regime has refused permission for human rights NGO's to visit the country since the early 1990's. By the same standards that Belton is using as a cudgel against AI, he should also be criticizing HRW and the International Committee of the Red Cross. By singling out AI, he reveals his own bias on this issue.

For a more carefully considered view of dealing with Cuba on Oxblog, I urge you to read this post by David Adesnik. I certainly think that he's on the right track.

Comments

[akaky]

i agree with you and buckley. the embargo serves no point at this juncture except to assuage the loathing of the exiles and, symbiotically enough, give castro a perpetual foreign enemy to justify his permanent state of siege. during the cold war such an unrelentingly hostile view of cuba could be taken because of its alliance with the soviet union, but since that entity no longer exists and russia does not have any real interest in the caribbean then cuba's strategic significance has shrunk as well. the embargo should be junked, but it wont; the exiles wont allow it, not while fidel is alive anyway.

[sblafren]

I agree that the embargo is not serving the purpose of weakening the regime, since that is its stated purpose, it should be junked. In fact, there is much evidence that trading with a nation such as China or Vietnam affects their regime and their people much more effectively.

However, I do not think that it is a moral slam dunk. While Vietnam appears to be truly embrassing Western values and liberalizing its national systems, China appears to be rather successfully playing both ends (this wont last much longer). And attending to the sympathies of millions of Cuban Americans isnt a worthless cause.

Meanwhile, there is the Amnest International issue. I would have to agree that this organization has lost nearly all value. Today they spend their energies chastizing the US for "war crimes" and criticizing British spanking while ignoring those issues and regimes that they seemingly cannot influence, from the Balkans to the Middle East to China. While I understand that the US and the UK are so much easier targets, I cannot respect the chosen focus. Amnesty is a farce.

[Randy Paul]

Sean,

I would agree with you that the issue is not a moral slam dunk, but there are two questions here: 1.) as you mentioned, are the embargo and travel ban having their intended effect and 2.)if not, why is it being clung to, despite the near unanimous opposition to it by the dissidents within Cuba. The answer seems to me to be no to 1 and to satisfy a powerful constituency to 2.

I do not think that I can disagree with you more regarding AI. First of all, there seems to be a zero-sum perception that if AI is addressing concerns regarding the US and the UK, then it is ignoring the rest of the world and focusing on the US and UK. That's simply not the case. I get urgent and other actions from AI regularly including one today that mentions the US, but also has actions in Turkey, the Congo, Russia, Liberia, Syria and Venezuela. This is typical in my experience and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are ignoring the Balkans, the Middle East, China and in-between.

It's also worth noting that the US Department of State's Human Rights Reports for years - including the most recent one - are consistently referencing reports and research from Amnesty International. Evidently they place great trust in AI's findings.

What annoyed me about Patrick Belton's comments regarding AI were three things: 1.) he takes AI to task for its criticism of the embargo and praises Human Rights Watch, yet he links to testimony before the Senate that is critical of the embargo and, indeed, HRW is very critical of the US, certain tactics in the war on terror and its position regarding US policy towards Cuab and AI's position are very similar; 2.) He was simply incorrect in stating that Amnesty International curiously spends most of its words playing for the gallery and attacking the U.S. embargo and (quote) the "war on terror" - their scare quotes" is simply incorrect as I demonstrated above; 3.) I find it to be a mixture of the bizarre and the ridiculous to condemn AI for not going to Cuba, when in fact the organization (and all human rights NGO's including HRW) for more than ten years have been refused visas. As I wrote him, what does he expect them to do?

Thanks for commenting Sean and please come back and share your thoughts again.