Sakharov prize

For french-reading people, acrimed (a french collective similar in spirit to FAIR) has an aboundance of documents about RSF. My conclusion: RSF might not anti-Castro by design but it sure has a lot of connections with dubious financial interests, and Robert Menard, its president, does not come out looking too good. RSF has a particularly abysmal record with respect to the treatment of Venezuela. Most of the information of the Counterpunch article are also easily confirmed by a five minutes google search (but in French) without the embarrassing reference to Meyssan.

I will not speculate on why RSF ended as finalist for the prize (is there a link between this and the normalization of relationship between Cuba and the EU?). But I must say I would personnaly favor a victory of the other contendents.

The fact that the European Parliament is celebrating Cuban dissidents and defenders of the victims of Sharia doesn’t really fit with the narratives promoted by Insta-people, EUrabians etc, so I expect they’ll just ignore the whole thing.

I’ll bet not, actually. The EU has taken some craven actions with respect to Cuba — notably the decision to stop inviting dissidents to meet at EU embassies taken earlier in this year. But I understand that decision was reversed and this short list is a good sign as well. This seems to me exactly the sort of thing that Reynolds would cite, from CT for example:

http://instapundit.com/archives/023392.php

Why should we care if the EU is anti-Cuba? Cuba is, after all, a dictatorship that is already degenerating into North Korean-style Communist family dynasty politics, with Raul slated to replace Fidel.

Cuba isn’t North Korea, or course, but it is also not a place where freedom of speech is respected.

Many people seem to have a romantic vision of Cuba, but I don’t see why someone who believes in freedom of speech and human rights should cut the Cuban government any slack.

…doesn’t really fit with the narratives promoted by Insta-people, EUrabians etc, so I expect they’ll just ignore the whole thing.

Actually it fits perfectly with how the EU-haters feel about EU. Just as EU will say strong words about Zimbabwe and then invite Mugabe over for some wine and cheese and a royal tour, the EU will say strong things about Cuba and then continue empowering Castro by freely trading with him.
This shows how serious the EU is about supporting democracy in Cuba.

“We remain concerned that suspending the restrictive measures, without achieving the goals for which they were put in place, will embolden regime hard-liners and dishearten the peaceful opposition,” department spokesman Richard Boucher said. “At the same time, I would say that we do look forward to seeing examples of European engagement for democracy.”

I guess giving out awards is the EU’s new “engagement for democracy”.

I say, expose the RSF for taking US money, and let them make true statements about the state of press freedoms in Cuba.

I’m fine with that, Hektor, as long as you throw in a third condition: Don’t give them an award suggesting that they’re more legitimate than they really are. There are any number of human rights organizations working on Cuban issues that are more deserving and less tainted by shadowy associations, aren’t there?

There you go with the double standard, Jet. The U.S. is qutie actively “engaged” with dictatorships all over the world. But the EU makes you see red…I suspect not because of anything to do with its Castro policy, but because it represents an alternative to U.S. hegemony.

shouldn’t some leading conservative be nominating Bush for this prize right about now, or is that so 2003?

Just another thought or two about RSF. If you’ve ever read Nat Hentoff’s rancid columns in the Village Voice, you’ll get a good idea where they are coming from. Freedom of the press is understood completely in terms of censorship by the government and has nothing to do with what how A.J. Liebling felicitously put it: “Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.” This means that nearly all of RSF’s firepower is directed against Hugo Chavez rather than at the pro-American press in Venezuela. Anybody who has been following events there would understand that the private media operates much as it did when Allende and the Sandinistas were under siege. In other words, the capitalist media is trying to overthrow a government that challenges the racist status quo. Frankly, I am not surprised that the “progressive” Europeans would want to bestow a prize on RSF. Although they are not as egregious as Bush and company, they have shown over and over a capacity to strike down challenges to their own perceived imperial interests. And it is always couched in terms of spreading democracy, while getting funded by George Soros and all the other usual suspects.

It’s an interesting question after all, why do degenerating Communist goverments turn into family dynasties?

I’ve wondered the same thing about declining capitalist superpowers…

MQ,
What makes me see red is that the EU acts as if universal rights like Liberty and Freedom are merely ethnocentric Western values and that if other cultures do not embrace them then that’s okay because they’re just different, not wrong.

It may appear that the EU and US are almost the same in how they chose their “exceptions” when becoming friendly with dictators; that they chose them for strategic alliances. But the US appears to chose their alliances in the interest of strategically promoting Democracy. The EU appears to chose their alliances in the interest of strategically improving their position (or impeding the US position) as a world power. How else to explain Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Africa et al? The US supports Pakistan to stabilize the region and support the US efforts in Afghanistan (or make sure Musharraf isn’t replaced with someone who will reignite the 1999 Pakistan-India war). The EU supports Zimbabwe to counter the African Anglo-sphere regardless of how much money Mugabe spends propping up militias in the D.R.C (or maybe it is just Mugabe’s European campaign donations).

This thread is providing more examples of this “take sides” mentality. Just because some of the anti-Castro forces are terrorists, doesn’t mean Castro is a good guy. Just because the French haven’t brought their own war criminals to justice doesn’t mean that Milosevic wasn’t a war criminal. Why is support for Milosevic so strong among people who oppose American policies abroad?

Why can’t I believe that both Castro and Otto Reich are contemptible human beings?

Yes, and I don’t think Castro’s personal qualities is really the issue here.

If I understand correctly, we are talking about the ‘freedom of thought’ not being a prominent enough feature of Cuba’s public life. But if any society ever had a good reason to suspect that demands for ‘freedom of thought’ are nothing but a powerful covert attempt to destroy the society itself – Cuba’s on the top of the list. Remove the threat first and then demand freedom of thought.

That’s very interesting, louis proyect. My understanding was that Castro and some confederates fled to the United States after leaving Cuba, by way of Mexico. While there they agitated for the overthrow of the government of Cuba, gathered funds from Cubans in the US, and then staged a landing on Cuba in November 26, 1956 from the US.

So Castro can hardly be against plotting against the Cuban government and raising funds to overthrow the Cuban government from the US in the abstract. He just seems to be against it in this specific case.

Look, many of the Cuban exiles don’t really support democracy in Cuba; they want some sort of caudillo government safe for international capital. But that doesn’t make Castro’s government a beacon unto the nations.

I also think that linking RSF with a terrorist is a bridge too far. After all, I can easily link Castro with the North Korean government. They are both operating in a bloc to foster dictatorships in their home countries. And the North Koreans are clearly linked to blowing up airlines and massive human rights violations.

It’s easy to play the game of linked affiliations.

RSF —-> CANF —-> blowing up airlines

Castro —-> North Korea —-> blowing up airlines (and worse)

I don’t think Castro is reponsible for North Korea’s actions, just like I don’t think RSF is responsible for the actions of Luis Posada Carriles.

Mr. Bim,

Fidel Castro would have never been forced to launch a revolutionary war if the USA had not invaded and occupied Cuba through much of the 20th century. What is consistent throughout this period and until now is that the USA has tried to force its will on Cuba. In the 1950s, Batista was our puppet. Our new puppets are getting support from the CIA, CANF et al. You can’t get more consistent than that.

I think one person has no problem calling Cuba a kind of beacon and he is no communist:

WASHINGTON, Apr 30 (IPS) – World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing “a great job” in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people.

His remarks followed Sunday’s publication of the Bank’s 2001 edition of ‘World Development Indicators’ (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics.

It also showed that Havana has actually improved its performance in both areas despite the continuation of the US trade embargo against it and the end of Soviet aid and subsidies for the Caribbean island more than ten years ago.

“Cuba has done a great job on education and health,” Wolfensohn told reporters at the conclusion of the annual spring meetings of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). “They have done a good job, and it does not embarrass me to admit it.”

His remarks reflect a growing appreciation in the Bank for Cuba’s social record, despite recognition that Havana’s economic policies are virtually the antithesis of the “Washington Consensus”, the neo-liberal orthodoxy that has dominated the Bank’s policy advice and its controversial structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) for most of the last 20 years.

Some senior Bank officers, however, go so far as to suggest that other developing countries should take a very close look at Cuba’s performance.

“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

full: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/185.html

Point taken, Hektor.

Wow.

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (March 19, 1995) reported:

Because he was gay, Reynaldo Garcia once was ostracized as a member of “La Escoria,” the official Cuban government term for homosexuals, convicts and the mentally ill. It means “the scum.”

Now Garcia can do something he never dreamed would be possible – walk hand in hand down the streets of Havana with his lover of six years without fear of reprisal.

“I never thought I would see this day. It’s a beautiful feeling,” Garcia said. “I feel like people are starting to see us as human beings, like anyone else.” Cuba is backing away from years of discrimination against homosexuals. Once packed off to work on rural farms alongside dissidents and religious Cubans, or nudged into exile, gays have entered a period of tolerance.

===

Bill Berkowitz
WORKINGFORCHANGE July 13, 2001

Viva gay Cuba! Out and married in the increasingly tolerant Communist island

While gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered folks around the world recently finished myriad celebrations of gay pride, an eye-opening report comes from Juan Perez Cabral – dateline Cuba. Cabral writes that while their relatives quietly witnessed, and the neighbors gawked, exercising their curiosity, “two gay male couples made history by publicly holding a gay wedding. Four local boys, Michel and Angel, and Juanito and Alejandro, ranging in ages from 17 to 22, exchanged symbolic vows before their families and friends at a neighborhood recreation center in one of the poorest sections of San Miguel del Padron, a working-class suburb southeast of Havana.”

Full: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=11550

===

David McReynolds:

Homosexual life. As a homosexual, let me not dodge this. I am told there are gay bars in Havana. I didn’t ask to go – at 71, bars are not that exciting, no matter where they are.(Doubly so for alcoholics who no longer drink!). Yes, a young teen age boy tried to pick me up. At least I think he did – his English was not working and my Spanish is very poor. I assume there is prostitution. You can’t sell tourists on the idea that Havana has a hot night life and lots of beautiful women (and men) without seeing a revival of the sex trade. But are homosexuals repressed? I don’t think so. I was visiting one evening with a gay man who works with the government who asked if I had seen “Gay Cuba”. I hadn’t, he had a copy and put it in his VCR. It was a good video – it documented the genuine repression which had existed not so long ago, and then the sharp change in government policy.

Full: http://www.cc-ds.org/Cuba/mcreynolds.htm

Nick,
From the AI 2005 report:

By the end of 2004 there were at least 70 prisoners of conscience, most of them held since the 2003 crackdown on the dissident movement. However, 18 prisoners of conscience were released and many were moved to prisons nearer their homes.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/cub-summary-eng

Apparently there are indeed some journalists among these 70 or so prisoners, but are you sure they were actually arrested for reporting?

abb1, don’t give me this “some say” business in comment 39. What do you say?

I compare Cuba to Taiwan. Taiwan has an extremely powerful hostile neighbor that claims it in its entirety and regularly threatens to kill many of its citizens. It has trouble with diplomatic recognition and can’t even get into the UN. But it is much more free in its political speech and much more socially developed. There are even legal political parties that almost certainly take money from the PRC.

So why is it that Taiwan is so much more free than Cuba? Why can’t Castro loosen the reins, retire, and let someone else run the place? I think the answer is that he doesn’t trust his own people, doesn’t believe in his government’s legitimacy, and is thus stuck in a prison of his own devising.

The embargo is just an excuse for Castro. For that reason alone, we should get rid of it. But I don’t think that is a sufficient excuse for the repression.

There is no comparison between Cuba and Taiwan. Taiwan was never invaded by China, as Cuba was during the Bay of Pigs. Taiwan was never the victim of an embargo, as Cuba was and is. Taiwan never had its crops burned, as Cuba did. Taiwan’s head of state was not the target of repeated assassination plots, as Fidel Castro was. Taiwan never had to endure terrorist bombings of its movie theaters, airliners and hotels as Cuba had. In fact, the comparison between Taiwan and Cuba is just ridiculous. I do want to thank Mr. Bim, however, for continuing to demonstrate the political and intellectual shallowness of anti-Communism, a religion that only a clinical psychiatrist can fully explain.

Hektor,
like I said: your opinion that it’s only an excuse may very well be correct, but how can we know for sure? Only the US can solve the mystery. And as Louis said it’s not just the embargo, of course, there’s much more than that.

Taiwan is a very different case and even there the true multi-party system became reality – what, about 5-10 years ago? After what – about 50-55 years of fascism? Why do you have so much more patience and understanding there?

Btw, IIRC, Chian Kaishek was replced by his son when he died in the 70s, so there you go.

abb1,

You still haven’t answered the question I put to you. What do you say? Is the repression justified or not?

Yes, but the son in Taiwan was replaced by Lee Teng-hui, and the opening began with him, in 1988. By 1991, the martial law regulations were gone, and things were progressing rapidly. So the thaw in Taiwan really began 17 years ago. There’s nothing comparable in Cuba today. In fact, even under Chiang Ching-Kuo in the 80s there was a strong movement toward political opening and increased Taiwanization of the government.