Dissidents
Jailed
locate on
page: CIP on Cuban dissident crackdown
| Letter to Cuban Interests Section | Crackdown
reflects Castro's fears | Why the crackdown
in Cuba? | House passes resolution on Cuban
dissident crisis
| Why did Washington goad Cuba? |
Human Rights Watch: sentences "totally
unjustified" | Cuba responds to criticism
| Senate Working Group urges dissidents' release
| Cuba
sentences dissidents
CIP's
Cuba team signs on to letter on Cuban dissident crisis
For Immediate
Release
April 9, 2003
Contact:
Wayne Smith, Anya Landau, Cuba Project
Sarah Stephens, Freedom to Travel Project
202.232.3317
CIP's Wayne Smith, Anya Landau and Sarah Stephens joined a group of
Washington-based policy analysts who urge changes in U.S. policy towards
Cuba in sending a letter on April 4th to the chief of the Cuban Interests
Section in Washington "to express our profound concern at the arrest
of more than 70 Cuban citizens in recent days, and to urge their immediate
release."
"In
the course of our work, many of us have met many of the Cubans who have
been arrested for advocating ideas that do not coincide with those of
your government," the signers wrote. "We fail to understand
how these ideas can constitute a threat to Cuba's security. To the contrary
we can only believe that a strong competition of ideas will help Cubans
to chart their future."
The letter
went on to say, "We know that Cuba has expressed serious grievances
regarding the conduct of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana. We believe
these grievances should be resolved between the governments, using the
channels of communication and the tools available to them."
As Wayne
Smith, former chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, has noted:
"In the dark days that lie ahead, people of good will in the United
States who want to see a more normal relationship between our two countries,
and to see a more open society in Cuba, should hold to the demonstrable
truth that the best way to bring about both is through the reduction
of tensions, the beginning of a meaningful dialogue and increased contacts.
"
Letter to Dagoberto Rodriguez, Chief of Cuban
Interests Section
April 4,
2003
Dagoberto
Rodriguez
Chief, Cuban Interests Section
Embassy of Switzerland
2630 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Dear Mr. Rodriguez,
We write
to express our profound concern at the arrest of more than 70 Cuban
citizens in recent days, and to urge their immediate release.
We are
Americans who promote changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba because we
believe that greater contact between our societies will both help resolve
current issues and prepare the way for improved relations in the future.
We will continue that work based on our view that it serves the interests
of both our peoples.
In the
course of our work many of us have met many of the Cubans who have been
arrested for advocating ideas that do not coincide with those of your
government. We fail to understand how these ideas can constitute a threat
to Cuba's security. To the contrary, we can only believe that a strong
competition of ideas will help Cubans to chart their future.
We know
that Cuba has expressed serious grievances regarding the conduct of
the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana. We believe these grievances should
be resolved between the governments, using the channels of communication
and the tools available to them.
We therefore
add our voices to the many others who call for the liberation of all
those Cubans who have recently been imprisoned for their political activism.
Sincerely,
Mavis Anderson, Senior Associate, Latin America Working Group
Bernard W. Aronson, Chairman, Acon Investments
Alberto R. Coll, Senior Fellow, Pell Center for International Relations
and Public Policy
Jim Courter, Chairman, Lexington Institute
Heather Foote, Director, Washington Office, Unitarian Universalist Service
Committee
Lisa Haugaard, Director, Latin America Working Group
Anya Landau, Associate, Center for International Policy
Philip Peters, Vice President, Lexington Institute
Wayne S. Smith, Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy
Sarah Stephens, Freedom to Travel project, Center for International
Policy
Crackdown reflects Castro's fears, not
U.S. actions
The
Miami Herald
By: Jaime Suchlicki
April 15, 2003
The recent violent crackdown on dissidents in Cuba has more to do with
Fidel Castro's desire to leave a clean slate for the succession to power
of his brother Raúl than with U.S. policies toward and actions
in the island.
Violent
repression of opposition is nothing new in Cuba. In 1971, Castro arrested
intellectuals, homosexuals and religious believers and staged a Stalinist
type trial against Cuba's famous writer, Heberto Padilla.
In 1975,
at the height of Cuba's involvement in Angola, Castro purged ''ideological
deviants'' from the University of Havana.
In 1980,
when President Carter was hoping for an improvement in U.S.-Cuban relations,
Castro arrested numerous opponents and unleashed the Mariel exodus onto
Florida shores.
In 1985,
Castro executed Gen. Arnaldo Ochoa and purged his security services
and the military of ``suspected elements.''
In 1996,
Castro crushed Concilio Cubano, an umbrella group of dissident organizations,
and arrested most of its members.
This most
recent crackdown was being planned for a long time. The Iraqi war provided
the timing. It should be clear by now that Castro despises opposition
groups or any form of dissent. He tolerated them as part of his ''charm
offensive'' to obtain unilateral concessions from the U.S. government:
tourism and credits.
Yet Castro's
deteriorating health and his desire to pave the way for a smooth succession
has taken precedence. As in the past, political considerations, not
economic ones, are paramount. By his actions now, Castro has given notice
that the internal period of limited tolerance has come to an end.
The rehabilitation,
prior to this latest crackdown, of Ramiro Valdés and his resurrection
as a new member of the ruling Council of State does not augur well for
the future. A former minister of the interior, Valdés is a dreaded
figure in Cuba, remembered for his human rights abuses and brutal repressive
methods. Passed in 1999, Law 88 criminalizes most political dissent
and is further evidence that Cuba's dictator has been getting ready
to impose orthodoxy at home while maintaining opposition to the United
States abroad.
Faced with
the approaching end of his life and his fear that once he is gone ''his''
revolution will change course and Cuba will end up as another friendly
Caribbean island close to the United States, Castro is following the
path of other old dictators, like Mao Zedong in China, who tried to
stem the tide of history. Cuba's ''cultural revolution'' promises to
be as brutal as that of Mao's in China.
Yet the
outcome seems also certain: Cubans will eventually reject Castroism
and transform Cuba into a free nation.
Jaime Suchlicki is the director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American
Studies at the University of Miami.
Why the Crackdown in Cuba?
By Wayne
S. Smith, CIP senior fellow
April 8, 2003
Various
newspaper articles reporting the deplorable crackdown on dissidents
in Cuba have noted that the situation there earlier had seemed to be
inching toward somewhat greater tolerance. During his trip to Cuba in
May of last year, for example, President Carter met with Cuban dissidents
and in his televised speech to the nation spoke of the Varela Project,
an initiative of theirs calling for greater political freedoms. And
both before and after Carters visit, many other Americans, myself
included, regularly and openly met with the dissidents as part of a
broad effort to improve relations between our two countries.
Oswaldo
Paya, the principal architect of the Varela Project, was even recently
allowed to come to the United States to receive the W. Averell Harriman
award from the National Democratic Institute in Washington, and from
there he went on to Europe. The Cuban government may not have liked
what he had to say while abroad, but he wasnt punished for it
when he returned home. It did indeed seem that things might slowly be
moving toward somewhat greater tolerance of dissent on the island.
Why then
the recent arrest of dissidents? Is it, as some in the United States
quickly posited, that Castro was simply hoping the rest of the world
was so distracted by the war in Iraq, that no one would notice or react
to the detention of a few dissidents in Cuba?
No, that
explanation simply doesnt hold up . First of all, no one in his
right mind (and whatever else he is, Castro is that) would have expected
the arrest of over 80 dissidents, many of them well-known international
figures, to go unremarked. The Cubans expected a firestorm, and they
got it.
Second,
the timing could hardly be worse from Castros standpoint. The
UN Human Rights Commission has just begun its annual deliberations to
decide, among other things, whether to condemn Cuba for violations of
human rights. Given the greater tolerance discussed above, there had
seemed a good chance that Cuba would not be condemned this year. The
crackdown, coming just now, makes that far less likely.
Given all
that, why the crackdown and why now? To answer those questions, we must
first note that the greater leeway for dissent noted above came in response
to the overtures of groups in the American Congress and the American
public, not to any easing of the hard line on the part of the Bush Administration.
Quite the contrary, its policies and rhetoric remained as hostile and
as threatening as ever. It ignored all Cuban offers to begin a dialogue
and instead held to an objective of regime change. As Mr. James Cason,
the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section has stated publicly, one of
his tasks was to promote transition to a participatory form of
government.
Now, we
would all like to see a more open society in Cuba, but it is not up
to the United States to promote it or bring it about. In fact, it is
not up to the United States to decide what form of government Cuba should
have. Cuba is, after all, a sovereign country.
The Bush
Administration was uncomfortable with signs of greater tolerance on
Castros part, for that simply encouraged those who wanted to ease
travel controls and begin dismantling the embargo. New initiatives along
those lines were expected in the Congress this spring. What to do to
head them off? What the Administration did is clear enough. It ordered
the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to begin a series
of high-profile and provocative meetings with dissidents, even holding
seminars in his own residence and passing out equipment of various kinds
to them. He even held press conferences after some of the meetings.
Such meetings might have been considered routine, had the purpose not
been regime change. But given that it was, the Cubans came to see them
as subversive in nature and as increasingly provocative.
Those arrested
were not, by and large, charged with expressing themselves against the
state, but with plotting with American diplomats. It has
been noted that Cuban diplomats regularly meet with American citizens.
True, but to understand Cuban sensitivities in this case, let us imagine
the reaction of the U.S. Government if those diplomats were meeting
with members of the Puerto Rican Independence Party to promote Puerto
Ricos transition from commonwealth to independence. Perhaps the
Attorney General would not have everyone involved arrested, but I wouldnt
take any bets on it.
And the
beginning of the war in Iraq did play a role in the crackdown. The Cubans
saw it as a signal that the United States was determined to throw its
weight around and to blow away anyone it doesnt like through the
unilateral use of force. As one Cuban official put it to me recently:
This new preemptive-strike policy of yours puts us in a new ball
game, and in that new game, we must make it clear that we cant
be pushed around.
It was
this kind of mind set that led to the crackdown and that turned the
latter into a massive overreaction. The Cubans did exactly what the
Bush Administration had hoped they would do. Virtually the whole active
dissident community has now not only been arrested but put on trial
(or notified that they soon will be) to face extremely heavy sentences
some perhaps even life imprisonment. Tragic. This is a blot that
will not be easily erased and that will impede any significant progress
in U.S.-Cuban relations until there is some amelioration of conditions
in Cuba. The Bush Administration meanwhile will certainly continue the
pressures, and the provocations, so as to prevent any such amelioration.
It has
been argued that Castro simply saw this as a propitious moment to halt
dissent in Cuba, and there are doubtless some elements of truth to that
argument. Castro has never liked to be criticized. Still, over the past
few years, he had tolerated criticism of the system. All things being
equal, he might have continued to do so. But the situation has changed,
not just between the U.S. and Cuba, but internationally, in ways that
the U.S. public is just beginning to understand.
In the
dark days that lie ahead, people of good will in the United States who
want to see a more normal relationship between our two countries, and
to see a more open society in Cuba, should hold to the demonstrable
truth that the best way to bring about both is through the reduction
of tensions, the beginning of a meaningful dialogue and increased contacts.
As Elizardo Sanchez, Cubas leading human rights activist, has
often put it, the more American citizens in the streets of Cuban
cities, the better for the cause of a more open society; so why do you
maintain travel controls? The policies followed by one administration
after another over the past 44 years have accomplished nothing positive.
True to form, the policy followed by the Bush Administration has produced
only a crackdown. Exactly what we should not want!
Wayne S. Smith, now a Senior Fellow at the Center for International
Policy, was Third Secretary of Embassy at the American Embassy in Havana
from 1958 until the U.S. broke relations in January of 1961, and was
Chief of the U.S. Interests Section there from 1979 until 1982.
Why
did Washington goad Cuba?
Toronto
Globe and Mail
By Paul Knox
April 9, 2003
When James
Cason was named last year as the senior U.S. diplomat in Cuba, he said
he planned to be "creative, activeand vigorous" in the job.
The chief result of his vigorous creativity is that dozens of political
activists and journalists have been imprisoned for outrageously long
terms after being convicted of conspiring with Mr. Cason to overthrow
the regime of President Fidel Castro.
Meantime,
there is no sign of any fundamental change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.
So the question is: Why did Washington's man in Havana goad the Castro
regime into launching what may well be its harshest crackdown on peaceful
dissent? And what does the Bush administration plan next?
Mr. Cason
arrived in Cuba in September and immediately cranked up the pace of
U.S. contacts with independent journalists and dissidents opposed to
Mr. Castro's Communist government. He crisscrossed the island, seeking
out activists and holding meetings with them. He let opposition journalists
use computers at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana. He not only
frequently invited dissidents to his residence, but ostentatiously showed
up at their meetings and spoke publicly in their support.
In February,
after being elected to a sixth term as president, Mr. Castro lashed
out, calling Mr. Cason's actions "shameless and defiant provocation."
He threatened to close the U.S. mission and boot its chief off his island.
Then, as the world was transfixed with events in Iraq, his agents swooped
down on the dissidents. Beginning March 18, they rounded up nearly 80
of them and clapped them in jail. The prisoners went on trial last week;
at least half of them have been sentenced to prison terms ranging from
10 to 27 years.
I don't
want any misunderstanding here. The man responsible for the crackdown
on dissidents is Mr. Castro. No matter what you think of the U.S. trade
embargo against Cuba, or what you think of Cuba's health-care and school
systems, there can be no justification for jailing a man for 25 years
because he wrote a pamphlet or made a radio broadcast or had lunch with
a U.S. diplomat.
On Cuban
soil, at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, the United States is holding
more than 600 prisoners captured in the "war on terrorism."
Some have been released without charge after more than a year of periodic
interrogation. All are denied minimal standards of due process. It is
wrong and unconscionable. It is also wrong and unconscionable for Cuba
to round up these peaceful protesters, conduct sham two-day trials in
which they had no prospect of a meaningful defence, and sentence them
to long terms in a harsh prison system.
No one
should be surprised about the Cuban crackdown --least of all in Washington.
But if it was foreseen by U.S. strategists, what's the plan? Remember,
this is the Bush administration. The same folks who are bombing the
bejesus out of Baghdad to deliver democracy to the Arab world. The same
ones who vow never again to betray opponents of a tyrannical regime
the way Iraqi foes of Saddam Hussein were hung out to dry by the U.S.-led
coalition in 1991. I can't believe the U.S. government plans to seriously
ratchet up pressure on Mr. Castro at the same time as it is heavily
engaged halfway around the world. Nevertheless, its own "national
security strategy" speaks of American ideals as a "lifeline
to lonely defenders of liberty" and of fighting not only terrorists
but also tyrants.
I asked
a couple of people in Washington about this, people who follow U.S.-Cuba
matters closely. They were careful to say Mr. Castro bears the blame
for what has happened, but they believe Mr. Cason's actions played into
his hands.
"United
States policy has given Castro an excuse, albeit illegitimate, to in
effect decapitate the dissident movement in Cuba," said Brian Alexander,
executive director of the Cuba Policy Foundation. Dan Erickson, Cuba
program director at the Inter-American Dialogue, reminded me that Mr.
Castro has a long history of choosing moments in which to exploit the
many weaknesses and contradictions in U.S. Cuba policy. "The United
States is playing checkers, and Castro is playing chess," he said.
"And once again, he's several moves ahead."
What will
the Bushites do now to back up Mr. Cason's new friends? Please, no more
military action. But since domestic politics preclude dropping the embargo,
the options for peaceful pressure are severely limited. Cutting off
money transfers to Cuba would impose further hardship on long-suffering
Cubans and enrage their relatives in exile. There seems little point
in further tightening travel restrictions.
Perhaps
the jailed dissidents know what Washington is up to. At any rate, they've
got plenty of time to think about it.
House passes Resolution 179 to condemn dissident arrests in Cuba
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the systematic
human rights violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime, calling
for the immediate release of all political prisoners, and supporting
respect for basic human rights and free elections in Cuba .
Whereas
the Cuban Government continues to repress all peaceful attempts by the
Cuban people to bring democratic change to the island by denying universally
recognized liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, association,
movement and of the press;
Whereas
on March 9, 2003, many of Cuba's prominent dissidents issued a statement
titled `Joint Statement' to the European Union, wherein they reaffirmed
their view of the Cuban Government's `total vocation to immobility and
its refusal to respect internationally recognized human rights or accept
the existence of legitimate political opposition' and further stated
that `in recent times the Cuban Government has intensified its political
and social repression';
Whereas
commencing on March 17, 2003, the Cuban Government carried out a massive,
island wide crackdown on members of Cuba's pro-democracy movement, which
included the arrest of over 80 dissidents, among them many who signed
the `Joint Statement', activists of the Assembly to Promote Civil Society,
promoters of the Varela Project, independent journalists, and numerous
members of Cuba's nascent independent civil society;
Whereas
the Cuban Government arbitrarily searched the homes and confiscated
personal items belonging to pro-democracy activists;
Whereas
independent journalists were among those incarcerated in this massive
crackdown, including Raul Rivero, known as the dean of the dissident
independent journalists in Cuba ;
Whereas
independent librarians, who make their homes available so that the Cuban
population may have access to publications otherwise censored by the
Cuban Government, also became victims of repression, as many were arrested,
their homes ransacked and searched, and publications and other belongings
confiscated;
Whereas
Marta Beatriz Roque, and other leaders of the `Assembly to Promote Civil
Society', an islandwide movement seeking to coordinate the various sectors
of Cuba's nascent independent civil society who work for a democratic
transition, were incarcerated and face lengthy sentences, including
life sentences;
Whereas
activists who have collected or signed petitions for the Varela Project
were also incarcerated in this crackdown and may also face life sentences;
Whereas
more than 80 pro-democracy leaders who work for a peaceful transition
to democracy in Cuba have been incarcerated and sentenced under `Law
88' and `Law 91', two draconian totalitarian laws that call for long
sentences of 10, 15, or 20 years, or life imprisonment, or even death
for pro-democracy activity;
Whereas
there is concern for the well-being and safety for all of Cuba's political
prisoners, particularly Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leyva, who is a blind human
rights activist incarcerated since March of 2002 without being formally
charged, and Leonardo Bruzon Avila, who has been denied medical attention
according to Amnesty International, despite the effects of a prolonged
hunger strike while in prison.;
Whereas
a plea for solidarity was made from within the notoriously harsh prison
in Cuba known as `Combinado del Este' and signed by 21 political prisoners,
among them Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, Francisco Chaviano, Rafael Ibarra,
and Jorge Luis Garcia Perez `Antunez' to the member states of the 59th
Session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission;
Whereas
the Cuban Government has carried out `summary trials' to expeditiously
sentence pro-democracy leaders to try to intimidate and silence other
pro-democracy activists on the island, while world attention is primarily
focused on Iraq;
Whereas
the Castro regime has engaged in mass arrests of dissidents while the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights, of which Cuba is a member,
is meeting in Geneva;
Whereas
certain member countries of the Latin American and Caribbean group (GRULAC)
at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights are currently drafting
a resolution on the violations of human rights by the Cuban Government;
Whereas
the Cuban Government has repeatedly violated the rights enshrined in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Inter-American Convention
on Human Rights, and other international and regional human rights agreements,
and has violated the mandates issued by the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights;
Whereas
foreign diplomats and members of the international press have been barred
by the Cuban Government from being present at the `summary trials';
and
Whereas
pro-democracy leaders on the island have come together to call for the
immediate release of all Cuban political prisoners, and are requesting
international solidarity with the internal opposition, as reflected
in a March 31, 2003, statement signed by some of the most prominent
dissidents on the island: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) condemns
the brutal crackdown of the Cuban Government on the island's peaceful
pro-democracy movement;
(2) calls
for the immediate release of all Cuban political prisoners;
(3) supports
the right of the Cuban people to exercise fundamental political and
civil liberties, including freedom of expression, assembly, association,
movement, press, and the right to multiparty elections;
(4) calls
on the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations
and other International Organizations in Geneva, Switzerland, to work
with the member countries of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights to ensure a resolution that includes the strongest possible condemnation
of the current crackdown of dissidents and of the gross human rights
violations committed by the Cuban Government; and
(5) calls
on the Latin American and Caribbean group (GRULAC) at the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights to exclude Cuba from its slate of candidates
for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and urges all member
nations to oppose renewing Cuba's membership on the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights until the Government of Cuba adheres to international
human rights standards, such as those delineated in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
Remarks
by Congressman James P. McGovern (MA)
In support of H. Res. 179
April 8, 2003
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution.
All voices
must condemn the recent crackdown by the Government of Cuba against
political dissent.
Those
arrested include more than two dozen independent journalists, leaders
of independent trade unions and opposition political parties, and pro-democracy
activists involved in the country-wide reform effort known as the Varela
project.
It makes
no difference whether you are for or against change in US policy towards
Cuba on this matter we speak with one voice: These arrests are
unacceptable. The summary trials and harsh sentences merit universal
condemnation.
I have
had the privilege of traveling to Cuba many times, and have met directly
with Cuban independent journalists and members of the dissident community.
Many of
these individuals were arrested in this latest crackdown. They are receiving
harsh sentences for actions we take for granted here in the United States
the right to hold meetings, have discussions, and express opinions
different from those held by the government.
The Cuban government has said these arrests are a response to actions
by U.S. Ambassador Cason and the U.S. Interests Section that are perceived
as deliberate attempts to foment subversion in Cuba.
Those
grievances should be raised and resolved between the two governments.
But no
action of the U.S. Interests Section justifies, in any way, these recent
arrests. The right of diplomats to meet with people who represent a
range of views including people who peaceably dissent from the
policies and priorities of their own governments should not be
impeded. In fact, Mr. Chairman, restrictions on US diplomats in Cuba
and Cuban diplomats in America are just plain wrong.
Mr. Chairman,
I am seriously concerned about the increased tensions and the hardening
of positions in US-Cuban relations. They do little to advance human
rights or open political space in Cuba, in fact, quite the opposite
they do little to benefit the Cuban or the American people.
I fear,
without concerted effort to change our policies towards one another
for the better, it will only lead to greater restrictions in both countries,
and fewer opportunities for moderate voices to engage directly with
one another.
I would
like to simply conclude by calling upon the Government of Cuba to release
these prisoners and all prisoners of conscience.
Human Rights Watch on Cuba's Sentencing of Dissidents
Cuba: Heavy
Sentences Are "Totally Unjustified"
Rights Group Calls on U.N. to Condemn Crackdown
(New York, April 7, 2003)
The heavy sentences imposed against non-violent Cuban dissidents are
unjustified and draconian, Human Rights Watch said today. Defendants
received sentences ranging from twelve to twenty-five years of imprisonment.
"These harsh prison sentences are totally unjustified," said
José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division
of Human Rights Watch. "Cuba is flouting fundamental human rights
norms."
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, now holding its annual
six-week session in Geneva, will be examining the human rights situation
in Cuba. Four Latin American countries (Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru
and Uruguay) have drafted a resolution on Cuba's human rights situation.
Over the
past eleven years, the U.N. Commission has passed ten resolutions criticizing
Cuba's violations of human rights. The language of this year's resolution
is considerably weaker than that of past years, however. Notably, it
contains no reference to the nature of the abuses under examination.
"It's
perverse that there's a massive crackdown occurring in Cuba just at
the moment that the United Nations is examining Cuba's human rights
record," said Vivanco. "The Commission must condemn these
abuses, and do so strongly and unequivocally."
Human Rights
Watch has confirmed that at least twelve defendants have been sentenced,
including Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, age 56; Raul Rivero, age 57;
Hector Palacios, age 62; Nelson Molinet Espino; Nelson Alberto Aguilar
Rodríguez; Ricardo González; Oscar Espinosa Chepe; Hector
Maseda; Oscar Alfonso Valdes; Marcelo Lopez and Marcelo Cano.
Marta Beatriz
Roque, an independent economist, received a twenty-year sentence. Roque
had previously spent nearly three years in prison for publishing an
analytic paper calling for political reforms.
Nelson
Molinet Espino and Nelson Alberto Aguiar, two dissidents who were tried
together with Beatriz Roque, received twelve-year sentences.
Raul Rivero,
a noted poet, writer and independent journalist, received a twenty-year
sentence. Other sentenced journalists include Ricardo González
Alfonso, who worked as a correspondent for Reporters Sans Frontières,
and who received a twenty-year sentence. Oscar Espinosa Chepe, an economist,
and Hector Maseda Gutierrez, a journalist, also received twenty-year
sentences.
Opposition
leader Hector Palacios, for whom prosecutors had originally recommended
a life sentence, was sentenced to twenty-five years of imprisonment
for treason and subversion. Palacios is one of the leaders of the Varela
Project, a high-profile reformist effort.
Opposition
activist Oscar Alfonso Valdes reportedly received an eighteen-year sentence.
Marcelo
Lopez and Marcelo Cano, human rights activists, received eighteen and
fifteen year sentences, respectively.
The ongoing
trials are the latest development in a massive wave of repression that
began on March 18. Approximately 80 people have been arrested and detained
since the crackdown began, including prominent dissidents, human rights
activists, independent journalists, independent unionists, and directors
of independent libraries.
State-run
television has accused the detainees of "provocations" and
"subversive activities."
One of
the ongoing trials is that of Oscar Biscet, a doctor and human rights
activist. He was arrested in December 2002, prior to the current crackdown.
His arrest came just over a month after his release from prison after
serving a three-year-sentence for a peaceful protest. Prosecutors are
reportedly demanding a life sentence in his case.
The Cuban
courts are using extremely summary procedures in these cases. As a general
matter, the courts lack independence and fair procedures. But for the
current prosecutions, aggravating these problems, the courts are using
a so-called facilitated procedure, which, under articles 479 and 480
of the code of criminal procedure, should be applied only in "exceptional
circumstances."
Cuba responds to criticism
The following
note from the Cuban Embassy in Canada responds to an article by the
Toronto Globe & Mail which cites a Canadian government protest
over the current trials in Cuba:
The individuals
arrested and prosecuted in Cuba that the G & M makes reference to
are not accused of nor were they detained as a consequence of being
economists, journalists, human rights activists of for expressing their
opinion or dissent. They have violated laws that are clearly aimed at
protecting Cuba from the attempt by the US government to destabilize
the country, undermine and destroy Cuba's Constitutional order, its
Government, its independence and its Socialist society.
It is illegal
in Cuba to render to the US government information that facilitates
the implementation of the Helms Burton law and other
provisions of US hostility toward Cuba. It is illegal to seek classified
information to help the implementation of Helms Burton. It is illegal
to reproduce and distribute information material of the US government
conceived to support the economic war against Cuba and disturb the internal
order in the country.
It is illegal
to take actions in support of Helms Burton that damage or obstruct the
economic, industrial, commercial or financial relations of Cuban entities
with the international community.
The US
does not have the right in Cuba and should not have the right anywhere
to allow their diplomats to interfere in the domestic affairs of foreign
countries. It is not acceptable for Cuba to allow the chief US diplomat
in Havana to act as an organizer or agitator against the Government
and to have Cuban citizens acting not only in complicity but as instruments
of the policy of hostility of the US against Cuba.
The US
government has dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars and still dedicates
millions of dollars today to destabilize the Cuban nation. The actions
for which these individuals have faced the law are organized, financed
and conceived by the US government. Cuba has the right to defend itself
against such powerful foe and to protect the stability, security and
the lives of its citizens. US hostility against Cuba has cost already
hundreds of lives, pain to many families, immense economic damage and
instability to the region. No country that respects itself would allow
its nation to face such dangers without protection.
This is
not an issue of human rights, liberty or freedom of expression, its
about the right of a nation to build a just society protected from foreign
aggression. The government that has supported the most brutal regimes
of the 20th century, that disregards international law, that steps over
the UN, that carries out a criminal war for economic and geopolitical
purposes, that possess the greatest arsenals of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons is the one that sustains these so called human rights
activists. There must be some connection.
Senate Working Group on Cuba urges dissidents' release
April 2,
2003
Dagoberto
Rodriguez
Chief, Cuban Interests Section
Embassy of Switzerland
2630 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Dear Mr.
Rodriguez,
As you may know, a bipartisan group of Senators recently announced the
formation of a Senate Working Group on Cuba. This group will work to
ease the trade and travel restrictions that have been in place for the
last forty years.
However,
as members of the Working Group and as advocates for improved relations
between the United States and Cuba we are deeply troubled by recent
actions of the Cuban government against Cuban dissidents. Dozens of
Cuban citizens have been arrested or threatened with arrest for promoting
human rights or practicing independent journalism. These arrests are
deplorable, and we hope that your government will immediately release
these dissidents. Unless corrected, the recent actions of the Cuban
government will only undermine efforts to expand contacts between the
two countries.
In addition,
we understand that the Cuban government has begun to restrict the freedom
of movement of U.S. diplomats in Cuba. There are reports that the Cuban
government may impose further restrictions on U.S. diplomats or even
close the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. This, in our view, would
be a tremendous mistake. Indeed, the increasing tensions between the
Cuban government and the U.S. Interests Section in Havana only threaten
to deteriorate further our diplomatic relationship. We in Congress believe
that the U.S. Interests Section in Havana should follow all diplomatic
norms in order to lessen tensions between our two governments, and your
government should do its part to bring about a lessening of tensions
as well. The current state of relations serves neither country.
Sincerely,
Max Baucus
Michael Enzi
Byron Dorgan
Norm Coleman
Blanche Lincoln
Jeff Bingaman
Chris Dodd
Pat Roberts
Chuck Hagel
Cuba sentences dissidents to 15 to 25 years
By Anthony
Boadle
April 7, 2003
HAVANA,
April 7 (Reuters) - Communist Cuba sentenced seven dissidents charged
with opposing President Fidel Castro to 15 to 25 years in prison in
the toughest political crackdown in decades.
In a clear
message to the Bush administration that Cuba will not tolerate its efforts
to build up a dissident movement on the island, a court convicted seven
people of "working with a foreign power to undermined the government"
and gave them prison sentences that ranged from 15 to 25 years.
Seventy-one
other people are also charged but their trials are not yet complete.
Despite
the tough sentences, the Havana Province Tribunal rejected prosecutors'
requests for life sentences for leading dissident Hector Palacios and
Ricardo Gonzalez, editor of Cuba's only dissident magazine, their wives
said. Palacios was sentenced to 25 years and Gonzalez to 20 years.
Cuba's
best known opposition writer, poet and journalist, 57-year-old Raul
Rivero, was sentenced to 20 years in jail.
"This
is so arbitrary for a man whose only crime is to write what he thinks,"
his wife Blanca Reyes told reporters after the sentence was given behind
closed doors. "What they found on him was a tape recorder, not
a grenade."
In other
sentences on Monday, economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe got 20 years, Hector
Maseda 20 years, Osvaldo Alfonso 18 years and Marcelo Lopez 15 years.
The crackdown began on March 18 with arrests and house searches. That
was followed last week by one-day trials in court rooms filled with
Communist Party members and security agents while only three close relatives
of the prisoners could attend, the wives said.
Government
informants who had infiltrated dissident groups testified against the
prisoners.
"The
trial was unfair. He met his lawyer five minutes before it started and
had no time to study the charges," said Claudia Marquez, wife of
Osvaldo Alfonso.
She said
the court reduced Alfonso's sentence from a life term sought by prosecutors
because he accepted the charges and said in court that he had been manipulated
by U.S. diplomats.
The wives
have three days to appeal, but said they were not hopeful the sentences
could be shortened.
"These
terms were dictated by President Castro. In Cuba there is only one voice,"
said Reyes.
WORLD CRITICISM
OF TRIALS
Western
diplomats and foreign journalists were barred from the trials, which
were criticized in Europe. The U.S. State Department said the dissidents
were being tried in "kangaroo courts."
International
human rights organizations accused Castro of trying to knock out his
political opponents while world attention was focused on Baghdad.
Half of
the 78 dissidents on trial had organized a signature drive to petition
for reforms to Cuba's one-party socialist state. The effort was known
as the Varela Project, which united Cuba's small, divided dissident
movement into the first major internal challenge to Castro's rule in
four decades.
The Bush
administration stepped up active support for the dissidents, who would
meet in the residence of the top U.S. diplomat in Havana, James Cason.
Castro, in power since a 1959 revolution, denounced Cason last month
for turning the American mission into an "incubator of
counterrevolution" and threatened to close the U.S. Interests Section.
Havana and Washington do not have formal diplomatic relations.
U.S. diplomats
were surprised to learn that Manuel David Orrio, who had led a meeting
of opposition journalists at Cason's house last month, testified against
Rivero and said in court testimony that he was a state security agent.
Prosecutors
have asked for life sentences for dissident economist Martha Beatriz
Roque; opposition labor activist Pedro Pablo Alvarez; and civil disobedience
advocate Oscar Elias Biscet. Those sentences are expected on Tuesday.
The trials
went virtually unnoticed in Cuba. There was no mention in Cuba's state-run
media and few Cubans were aware of the dissident round-up.
"The
social and economic decay in Cuba is so great and the government knows
there is widespread discontent," said Miriam Leiva, a former diplomat
who lost her job and was expelled from the Communist Party in 1992 for
not divorcing her dissident husband Espinosa Chepe.
"That
is why the sentences are so harsh, to repress people calling for change
and intimidate others," she said.
Back to top