Amnesty International Reiterates Demand for Release of Ferrer 

On November 12, Amnesty International reiterated its demand that Cuba release José Daniel Ferrer, the leader of Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU).[1]

Its release stated he “has been in detention for 40 days, since Oct 1, for reasons still unknown. As far as we can ascertain, he has not been informed of the charges against him or brought before a judge. In addition, recent alarming reports suggest he may have been tortured or ill-treated while in detention, something Amnesty International has not been able to independently verify in a context where lawyers and the judiciary are largely controlled by the Executive. Mass mobilization is needed to ensure that the Cuban government presents charges against him or release him, and refrains from potentially taking actions that may amount to ill-treatment against him.”

This blog has reported Ferrer’s recent arrest and detention and subsequent developments.[2]

=================================

[1] Amnesty International, Cuba: Opposition Leader at Risk of Torture: José Daniel Ferrer Garcia (Nov. 12, 2019); Amnesty International launches another urgent action for ‘risk of torture’ by José Daniel Ferrer, Diario de Cuba (Nov. 13, 2019).

[2]  U.S. Imposes New Sanctions on Cuba and Denounces Cuba’s Detention of Dissident, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 19, 2019). In addition, these comments have been added to that post: Cuban Court Denies Habeas Corpus for Ferrer (Oct. 21, 2019); Ferrer’s Family Released from Detention (Oct. 26, 2019); More Pressure for Release of Ferrer (Oct. 31, 2019); Cuban Attorneys Say Cuban Regime Frequently Forcibly Disappears Its Citizens (Nov. 2, 2019); No Cuban Government Report on Status of Ferrer (Nov. 2, 2019); Washington Post Editorial Calls for Cuba To Release Ferrer (Nov. 9, 2019); Cuba Allegedly Using Venezuelan Torture Technique on Ferrer (Nov. 11. 2019).

U.S. Imposes New Sanctions on Cuba and Denounces Cuba’s Detention of Dissident   

On October 18, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) imposed new sanctions against Cuba while the State Department denounced Cuba’s detention of dissident Jose Daniel Ferrer.

New Sanctions[1]

The BIS revoked “existing licenses for aircraft leases to Cuban state-owned airlines, and will deny future applications for aircraft leases.” This was based upon the Department’s assertion that  “the Cuban regime is resorting to transporting tourists on leased aircraft subject to BIS jurisdiction.”

Additionally, “BIS is expanding Cuba sanctions to include more foreign goods containing U.S. content, and is imposing additional restrictions on exports to the Cuban regime.” According to a regulation set for October 21 publication, the Export Administration Regulations will be amended so that goods with as little as 10% U.S. content will be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and, thus, require a license from the U.S. Department of Commerce for export or reexport to Cuba. Previously, the policy only applied to goods with 25% or greater U.S. content. In addition, the amendment will, prohibit certain donations to the Cuban government and communist party  and clarify the scope of telecommunications items that the Cuban government may receive without a license.

This action, says the Department, “supports the Administration’s earlier decision to hold the Cuban regime accountable for repressing its own people as well as continuing to provide support to the illegitimate Maduro regime which has terrorized the Venezuelan population and wantonly destroyed the once-prosperous economy relied on by millions.”

The Department’s Secretary, Wilbur Ross, said, “This action . . . sends another clear message to the Cuban regime – that they must immediately cease their destructive behavior at home and abroad. The Trump Administration will continue to act against the Cuban regime for its misdeeds, while continuing to support the Cuban people and their aspirations for freedom and prosperity.”

Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel in a tweet said these new sanctions were “an expression of impotence, moral degradation and imperial contempt. It is an inhuman, cruel, unjust and genocidal act that we strongly reject. We will not give up. and we will give sovereign answer.”

A similar tweet came from Cuba Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez: these are “additional acts of economic blockade, representative of a moral bankruptcy policy, internationally isolated and promoted by a corrupt government. The Cuban people will continue to give due and sovereign response.”

Denouncing Cuban Detention of Dissident[2]

The Cuban dissident who has been detained is Jose Daniel Ferrer, the founder of  the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU).

According to the State Department, “On October 1, “Castro regime officials detained Mr. Ferrer and several other human rights defenders in Santiago de Cuba.  Mr. Ferrer reportedly has still not been informed of any charges against him, and has been denied access to a lawyer and to medical care.  Mr. Ferrer’s family has not been permitted contact with him since October 4.”  In addition, other “UNPACU activists Roilan Zarraga Ferrer, José Pupo Chaveco, and Fernando González Vailant also remain in custody.”

“Ferrer’s case is one more example of the Castro regime’s continuous and flagrant violation of human rights, which has recently escalated into a wave of repression against freedoms of speech, expression, and religion.  The United States will not allow these abuses against the Cuban people to go unnoticed or unanswered.  We will continue to increase sanctions and trade restrictions to diminish the resources available to the Cuban regime, which uses its income to suppress its own citizens and to prop up other regimes with shameful human rights records, including the former Maduro regime in Venezuela.”

Therefore, the U.S. “strongly condemns the Cuban regime’s unconscionable detainment of . . . [Senor] Ferrer, founder of the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU).  We call on the Castro regime to immediately disclose Mr. Ferrer’s location and condition, to treat him humanely, and to release him from detention without condition.”

Similar protests of this detention have been registered by UNPACU, Cuba’s Legal Information Center (CUBALEX), Cuban Prisoners Defenders, Freedom House and Amnesty International.

==============================

[1] Commerce Dep’t, U.S. Department of Commerce Further Tightens Cuba Sanctions (Oct. 18, 2019); Reuters, U.S. Hits Cuba With New Sanctions Over Human Rights, Venezuela, N.Y. Times (Oct. 18, 2019); Assoc. Press, U.S. slaps new sanctions on Cuba over human rights, Venezuela, Wash. Post (Oct. 18, 2019);Center for Democracy in Americas,  U.S. restricts additional exports and re-exports to Cuba, U.S.-Cuba News Brief: 10/18/2019.

[2] State Dep’t, Detention of Cuban Human Rights Defender José Daniel Ferrer (Oct. 18, 2019); The arrest of José Daniel Ferrer is ‘a mechanism of repression against all civil society,’ Diario de Cuba (Oct. 17, 2019); Cuban Prisoners Defenders denounces the Cuban regime in Geneva for the case of José Ferrer, Diario de Cuba (Oct. 17, 2019).

 

Additional Cuban Political Prisoners Named by Amnesty International 

On August 26, Amnesty International five additional Cubans as political prisoners.[1]

All of them, said Amnesty, had been detained since 2015 and sentenced to one to five years for “public disorder,” “contempt” or “disorder” while two of them, according to relatives, had been badly beaten. Amnesty’s Americas Director, Erika Guevara-Rosas, said “For decades, Cuba has stifled freedom of expression and assembly by locking up people for their beliefs and opposition to the government. Over the years, the names of Cuba’s prisoners of conscience have changed, but the state’s tactics have stayed almost exactly the same.”

Amnesty added, “Sadly, we know that the five prisoners of conscience we have named today likely represent a tiny fraction of those behind bars for peacefully expressing their views. As the Cuban authorities continue to deny independent human rights monitors access to the country and its prisons, and because the state’s machinery of control maintains a profound climate of fear, there are serious barriers for Amnesty International to document such cases.”

Also on August 26, “the head of Cuba’s largest opposition group, the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU), Jose Daniel Ferrer, said on Twitter that security forces had detained 15 activists and prevented dozens of others from reaching their local headquarters in order to prevent activities to celebrate the group’s eighth anniversary.”

Cuban Prisoners Defenders, which is based in Madrid and which has links to UNPACU, estimates there are at least 70 political prisoners on the island.

=========================

[1] Amnesty Int’l, Cuba:  Amnesty International  names five new prisoners of conscience (Aug. 26, 2019); Reuters, Amnesty International Names Five New Political Prisoners in Cuba, N.Y. Times (Aug. 26, 2019).

 

More Comments on Commission on Unalienable Rights

Yesterday’s post covered the formal launch of the Commission on Unalienable Rights. Here are additional reactions to the Commission. [1]

Negative Reactions

 Senator Robert Menendez (Dem., NJ), the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Mr. Pompeo’s argument for a new human rights panel was “absurd” and that the Trump administration “has taken a wrecking ball to America’s global leadership on promoting fundamental rights across the world.” Instead, “we need this President and this Secretary to actually champion human rights by standing up for America’s values and by using the framework that is already in place and which has been championed by prior administrations for decades, regardless of party.”

Representative Eliot Engel (Dem., NY). the Chair of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, stated, “This commission risks undermining many international human-rights norms that the United States helped establish, including LGBTQI rights and other critical human-rights protections around the world. Decades ago, Congress created an entire bureau in the State Department dedicated to defending and reporting on human rights and advising the Secretary and senior diplomats on human rights and democratic development. Now the Secretary wants to make an end run around established structures, expertise, and the law to give preference to discriminatory ideologies that would narrow protections for women, including on reproductive rights; for members of the LGBTQI community; and for other minority groups.” Engel also noted that he had cosponsored a measure to prohibit funding for this new body that recently had been passed by the House.

The American Jewish World Service denounced the creation of the commission because of what it said was a religious bent to the panel. Its director of government affairs, Rori Kramer, said, “As a Jewish organization, we are deeply skeptical of a government commission using a narrow view of religion as a means to undermine the ecumenical belief of respecting the dignity of every person, as well as the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We fear this commission will use a very particular view of religion to further diminish U.S. leadership on human rights.”

Rob Berschinski, the Senior Vice President for policy at Human Rights First and a former  deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor during the Obama administration, said well-established principles for advancing human rights already existed and did not need to be revamped. He added that most of the 10 people named to the new commission viewed human rights largely through the lens of religious freedom. “At first blush,” he said, “the commission certainly seems to reinforce the perception that the administration and State Department under Secretary Pompeo uniquely emphasize religious freedom amongst universal rights.”

Another observer also voiced negative views of the Commission. “We don’t need this commission,” said Michael Posner, the State Department’s assistant secretary for DRL from 2009 to 2013. “What we need is for the U.S. government, the secretary of state and the president to abide by and uphold international human rights standards we already have adopted.”

Joanne Lin of Amnesty International said, “”If this administration truly wanted to support people’s rights, it would use the global framework that’s already in place. Instead, it wants to undermine rights for individuals, as well as the responsibilities of governments. This approach only encourages other countries to adopt a disregard for basic human rights standards and risks weakening international, as well as regional frameworks, placing the rights of millions of people around the world in jeopardy.”

Positive Reactions

Daniel Philpott, a University of Notre Dame professor who was initially mentioned as a potential commission member, said that natural law reflects a concern that human rights have gone off the rails, in part because of abortion and claims about marriage rights. “The idea is these claims of human rights are not based upon natural law or the truth of the human person. In a sense, these are false claims to human rights. It brings down the cause of human rights in general. Why should we pursue other human rights if human rights can be anything one faction or party advocates them to be?”

The Wall Street Journal notes that the Chair of the new Commission, Mary Ann Glendon, opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. And Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, endorsed the Commission as an effort to “help further the protection of religious freedom, which is the foundation for all other human rights.”

===================

[1] Press Release: Menendez Questions Intent and Impact of Trump Admin’s New Commission on Unalienable Rights (July 8, 2019); Press Release, Engel Statement on State Department “Unalienable Rights” Commission (July 8, 2019); Wong & Sullivan, New Human Rights Panel Raises fears of a Narrowing U.S. Advocacy, N.Y. Times (July 8, 2019); Morello, State Department launches panel focused on human rights and natural law, Wash. Post (July 8, 2019); Visser, Mike Pompeo Unveils New Panel To Refocus U.S. Human Rights Priorities, Huffington Post (July 8, 2019); Oprysko, Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine ‘unalienable rights,’ Politico (July 8, 2019); McBride, Pompeo Creates Commission on Human Rights, W.S.J. (July 8, 2019).

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights Is Launched

On July 8, 2019, the U.S. State Department launched its Commission on Unalienable Rights.[1]

Secretary of State Pompeo’s Remarks

At the launch Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said “the Trump administration has embarked on a foreign policy that takes seriously the founders’ ideas of individual liberty and constitutional government. Those principles have long played a prominent role in our country’s foreign policy, and rightly so. But as that great admirer of the American experiment Alex de Tocqueville noted, democracies have a tendency to lose sight of the big picture in the hurly-burly of everyday affairs. Every once in a while, we need to step back and reflect seriously on where we are, where we’ve been, and whether we’re headed in the right direction, and that’s why I’m pleased to announce today the formation of a Commission on Unalienable Rights.”

The Commission will focus on “human rights grounded in our nation’s founding principles and the principles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An American commitment to uphold human rights played a major role in transforming the moral landscape of the international relations after World War II, something all Americans can rightly be proud of. Under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights ended forever the notion that nations could abuse their citizens without attracting notice or repercussions.” (Emphasis added.)

“With the indispensable support of President Ronald Reagan, a human rights revolution toppled the totalitarian regimes of the former Soviet Union. Today the language of human rights has become the common vernacular for discussions of human freedom and dignity all around the world, and these are truly great achievements.”

“But we should never lose sight of the warnings of Vaclav Havel, a hero of the late-20th-century human rights movement, that words like ‘rights’ can be used for good or evil; ‘they can be rays of light in a realm of darkness … [but] they can also be lethal arrows.’ And as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has observed, the evils of any time and place will be justified in whatever is the dominant discourse of that time and of that place. We must, therefore, be vigilant that human rights discourse not be corrupted or hijacked or used for dubious or malignant purposes.”

“It’s a sad commentary on our times that more than 70 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, gross violations continue throughout the world, sometimes even in the name of human rights. International institutions designed and built to protect human rights have drifted from their original mission. As human rights claims have proliferated, some claims have come into tension with one another, provoking questions and clashes about which rights are entitled to gain respect. Nation-states and international institutions remain confused about their respective responsibilities concerning human rights.” (Emphasis added.)

 With that as background and with all of this in mind, the time is right for an informed review of the role of human rights in American foreign policy.” (Emphasis added,)

The Secretary hopes that the Commission “will revisit the most basic of questions: What does it mean to say or claim that something is, in fact, a human right? How do we know or how do we determine whether that claim that this or that is a human right, is it true, and therefore, ought it to be honored? How can there be human rights, rights we possess not as privileges we are granted or even earn, but simply by virtue of our humanity belong to us? Is it, in fact, true, as our Declaration of Independence asserts, that as human beings, we – all of us, every member of our human family – are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights? (Emphasis added.)

To put it another way, “the commission’s charge is to point the way toward that more perfect fidelity to our nation’s founding principles. . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Secretary Pompeo’s Prior Wall Street Journal Article[2]

The day before the Department’s launching of the Commission. Secretary Pompeo published an article about the Commission in the Wall Street Journal, in which he made the following comments beyond what he said at the official launch.

“America’s Founders defined unalienable rights as including ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ They designed the Constitution to protect individual dignity and freedom. A moral foreign policy should be grounded in this conception of human rights.”

“Yet after the Cold War ended, many human-rights advocates turned their energy to new categories of rights. These rights often sound noble and just. But when politicians and bureaucrats create new rights, they blur the distinction between unalienable rights and ad hoc rights granted by governments. Unalienable rights are by nature universal. Not everything good, or everything granted by a government, can be a universal right. Loose talk of ‘rights’ unmoors us from the principles of liberal democracy.” (Emphasis added.)

He hopes “that its work will generate a serious debate about human rights that extends across party lines and national borders.” It “will address basic questions: What are our fundamental freedoms? Why do we have them? Who or what grants these rights? How do we know if a claim of human rights is true? What happens when rights conflict? Should certain categories of rights be inextricably ‘linked’ to other rights?”

“The human-rights cause once united people from disparate nations and cultures in the effort to secure fundamental freedoms and fight evils like Nazism, communism and apartheid. We have lost that focus today. Rights claims are often aimed more at rewarding interest groups and dividing humanity into subgroups.” (Emphasis added.)

Oppressive regimes like Iran and Cuba have taken advantage of this cacophonous call for ‘rights,’ even pretending to be avatars of freedom. No one believed the Soviet call for collective economic and civil rights was really about freedom. But after the Cold War ended, many human-rights advocates adopted the same approach, appealing to contrived rights for political advantage.” (Emphases added.)

“The commission’s work could also help reorient international institutions specifically tasked to protect human rights, like the United Nations, back to their original missions. Many have embraced and even accelerated the proliferation of rights claims—and all but abandoned serious efforts to protect fundamental freedoms.” (Emphasis added.)

Human-rights advocacy has lost its bearings and become more of an industry than a moral compass. And ‘rights talk’ has become a constant element of our domestic political discourse, without any serious effort to distinguish what rights mean and where they come from.” (Emphasis added.)

Announcement of Commission’s Chair

On July 8, the Secretary announced that the Chair of the Commission will be Mary Ann Glendon, the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, an expert on human rights, comparative law and political theory and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, among many honors.

Professor Glendon acknowledged this appointment with the following remarks:

 

  • “Secretary, I am deeply grateful for the honor of chairing this new commission, and I wanted to thank you especially for giving a priority to human rights at this moment when basic human rights are being misunderstood by many, manipulated by many, and ignored by the world’s worst human rights violators. At the same time, I understand that the mission that you have set us is a challenging one. You’ve asked us to work at the level of principle, not policy, and you’ve asked us to take our bearings from the distinctive rights tradition of the United States of America, a tradition that is grounded in the institutions without which rights would not be possible: constitutional government and the rule of law. I want to assure you, Mr. Secretary, that we will do our very best to carry out your marching orders and to do so in a way that will assist you in your difficult task of transmuting principle into policy.”

Announcement of Nine Other Commission Members

The Secretary also announced the appointment of the following nine additional members of the Commission. (The Commission’s Charter calls for 15 members so there may be an additional five members to be named later.)[3]

Russell Berman. He is the Walter A. Haas Professor in the Humanities at Stanford University, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and co-chair of its Working Group on Islamism and the International Order. Recently he has written about the reemergence of anti-Semitism and China’s “programmatic efforts to suppress the ethnic identity of the Uighur people” of Islamic faith.

Peter Berkowitz.  He is the Ted and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of its Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group and a member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff. He “studies and writes about, among other things, constitutional government, conservatism and progressivism in the United States, liberal education, national security and law, and Middle East politics.”

Paolo Carozza. He is Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and Director of its Kellogg Institute for International Studies an interdisciplinary, university-wide body “focusing on the themes of democracy and human development.”  His expertise is in the areas of comparative constitutional law, human rights, law and development and international law. From 2006 through 2010 he was a member of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the principle international body for protecting human rights in the Western Hemisphere, and he also has served the Holy See in various capacities.

Hamza Yusuf Hanson. He is an American Islamic scholar, proponent of classical Islamic sciences and founder of Zaytuna College, a Muslim liberal arts college in Berkeley, California. According to The New Yorker Magazine, he is  “perhaps the most influential Islamic scholar in the Western world.” He was born in the U.S. as Mark Hanson and grew up a practicing Greek Orthodox Christian, but at age 19 he read the Qur-an and converted to Islam.

Jacqueline C.  Rivers. She is Lecturer on Sociology at Harvard University. She holds B.A. and Ph. D degrees with honors from Radcliffe College and Harvard and has served as Doctoral Fellow in the Multidisciplinary Program in Inequality and Social Policy of the Harvard’s J. F. Kennedy School of Government and a Graduate Research Fellow of the National Science Foundation. Rivers, an African-American, also is the Executive Director of the Seymour Institute on Black Church and Policy Studies, which seeks to create and promote a philosophical, political and theological framework for a pro-poor, pro-life, pro-family movement within the ecumenical Black Church both domestically and internationally.

Meir Soloveichik. He is an American Orthodox rabbi with a Ph.D. degree in religion from Princeton University. He has written extensively about Jewish thought and life, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity and the limits of interfaith dialogue. In 2012 he gave the opening invocation at the Republican National Convention.

Katrina Lantos Swett. She is the former chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and now the President of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights, which is named in honor of her father, a Holocaust survivor and former Democratic Congressman. She is married to Richard Swett, former Ambassador to Denmark and former Congressman, and she converted to his faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She has been an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

Christopher Tollefsen. He is the University of South Carolina’s College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Philosophy Professor with specialization in moral philosophy, natural law ethics, practical ethics and bioethics. He has written many articles for “Public Discourse,” the journal of the Witherspoon Institute, which seeks to promote public understanding of the moral foundations of free societies.  He also is a co-author of Embryo: A Defense of Human Life and the editor of John Paul II’s Contribution to Catholic Bioethics.

David Tse-Chien Pan. He is Professor of German at University of California, Irvine. His research has focused on the problem of aesthetic experience as a mediator of human history in order to understand how history develops through a process of recollection and interpretation that depends on judgment and takes the reception of works of art as its model.

Reactions

Secretary Pompeo’s Wall Street Journal article for the first time really sets forth what has been speculated as the Commission’s true mission: redefinition and narrowing of international human rights.

A senior State Department official, in a report by CBS News, made the same point, perhaps more diplomatically, when he said the Commission will act like a “study group, examining the concept of universal human rights, where those rights come from and the difference between inherent rights and those prescribed by governments. . . . Unalienable rights are granted to everyone, everywhere, at all times. It doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay, or a man or a woman, or black, white, brown or purple.’”

However, this official said, topics like abortion and gay marriage will not be part of the panel’s agenda. ‘Women’s rights or gay rights or healthcare rights, those are domestic issues.’ At some point gay marriage might be considered one of those, but this is an issue that’s being worked out on a nation-state level.’”

The importance of this Commission from the Trump Administration’s standpoint is underscored by the impressive resumes of its Chairperson and its initial other members. Therefore, advocates for the existing body of international human rights law need to prepare to combat this onslaught.

Amnesty International USA immediately said there was no reason for such a review given the decades-old protections in place and that the use of the word “unalienable” might be a code word to narrow human rights to the Founders’ notions of the late 18th century. Similar thoughts were expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union: “taxpayer resources would be better spent assessing the administration’s failure to meet basic human rights obligations, rather than redefining those rights.”

=======================================

[1] State Dep’t, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo Remarks to the Press (July 8, 2019); Sullivan & Wong, State Department Creates Advisory Panel on Human Rights, N.Y. Times (July 8, 2019); Reuters, Pompeo Launches Panel to Review Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy, N.Y. Times (July 8, 2019)(notes Trump Administration’s U.N. actions against sexual and reproductive health measures); Assoc. Press, Trump Administration Reviews Human Rights’ Role in US Policy, N.Y. Times (July 8, 2019). Previous posts to this blog have discussed this Commission: Is Trump Administration Attempting To Redefine International Human Rights? (June 15, 2019); Other Reactions to State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights (June 17, 2019); More Thoughts on Commission on Unalienable Rights (June 18, 2019); U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights: Developments (July 4, 2019).

[2] Pompeo, Unalienable Human Rights and U.S. foreign Policy, W.S.J. (July 7, 2019).

[3] Another source listed two possible additional members of the Commission: Kiron Skinner and F. Cartwright Weiland. Skinner is the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and a former Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Weiland is a current or former chief speechwriter for Senator John Cornyn and Republican Whip (Rep., TX) and/or Policy Analyst at Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute. (Ruffini, Mike Pompeo unveils new “Unalienable Rights” commission amid concerns over progressive rollbacks, CBS News (July 8, 2019).)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cuba Arrests Opponents of Proposed New Constitution

On February 11, Cuban authorities arrested 20 activists of thePatriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU) for their promotion of voting “No” in the upcoming  referendum on February 24 on the country’s proposed new constitution.

These arrests of Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU) members for their promotion of voting “No” in the upcoming  referendum on February 24 occurred at UNPACU’s headquarters in eight houses in Santiago de Cuba in connection with an early morning assault by over 200 Cuban soldiers and police, who seized computers, printers, telephones and other equipment and records. 

UNPACU’s national coordinator, José Daniel Ferrer Garcia, blasted these arrests: “They attack us, they beat us, they rob us, they torture us and they even want to stave us.”  On February 11 he also started a hunger strike until at least February 24 (the day of the national referendum seeking approval of the new constitution). Three days later at least 25 of the organization’s activists had joined the hunger strike.

There also are reports that José Daniel Ferrer Castillo (the 16-year-old son of UNPACU’s national coordinator) arbitrarily had been detained and beaten. In addition, on February 13, the Cuban police again appeared at UNPACU’s headquarters to harass members of the organization.

UNPACU, which was founded on August 24, 2011, defines itself as a civil organization that advocates the peaceful but firm struggle against any repression of civil liberties in Cuba. According to Amnesty International, it “is an organization that brings together dissident organizations based mainly in Santiago de Cuba, but also in neighboring provinces in the east of the country. Its goal is to achieve democratic change in Cuba by non-violent means. Since its inception . . . its members have suffered harassment and intimidation . . ., including arrests by the authorities.”

According to UNPACU, the proposed new constitution “denies elementary rights, restricts basic freedoms {and Cubans] will continue oppressed and in the deepest misery.” The central reason for this conclusion, it says, is Article 5, which states as follows:

  • The Communist Party of Cuba, unique, Marxist, Fidelist, Marxist and Leninist, organized vanguard of the Cuban nation, based on its democratic character and the permanent bonding with the people, is the superior political force leader of the society and of the State.” (Emphasis by UNPACU.)

==========================================

José Daniel Ferrer: “Either they respect or they kill us,’ Diario de Cuba (Feb. 12, 2019); Marco Rubio on the violent opposition against the UNPACU: ‘More sanctions come to the response,’ Diario de Cuba (Feb. 13, 2019); UNPACU: 25 opponents on hunger strike ‘at least until 24 February,’ Diario de Cuba (Feb. 14, 2019); UNPACU; UNPACU Release, UNPACU calls to vote NO on the new Cuban Constitution; José Daniel Ferrer, Wikipedia.

Cuba’s Legislature Approves Revised Draft of New Constitution

On December 22, Cuba’s National Assembly unanimously approved a proposed new constitution for submission to a national referendum on February 24, 2019. It incorporates into an original one published in July hundreds of mainly small changes proposed by citizens during a three-month public consultation at community meetings nationwide. [1]

Summary of Latest Draft of Constitution

This draft maintains Cuba as a centrally planned economy ruled by a single Communist Party, but recognizes private property for the first time and paves the way for a separate referendum on legalizing gay marriage. It  also creates the role of prime minister alongside the current president, as well as provincial governors.

The new draft also recognizes worker-owned cooperatives for the first time as a legal form of production in every sector of the economy, while maintaining Cuba’s largely inefficient and stagnant state-run industries as the central means of production.

The draft contains the following 11 titles:

  • Title I: Political foundations
  • Title II: Economic fundamentals
  • Title III: Fundamentals of educational, scientific and cultural policy (Old Title V)
  • Title IV: Citizenship
  • Title V: Rights, Duties and Guarantees.
  • Title VI: Structure of the State.
  • Title VII: Territorial Organization of the Stat
  • Title VIII: Local Organs of Popular Power
  • Title IX: Electoral System
  • Title X: Defense and National Security
  • Title XI: Reform of the Constitution.

Cuba Official Reaction to New Draft.[2]

In closing this session of the National Assembly, President Miguel Diaz-Canel said the island’s economic challenges — including a week 1.2 percent 2018 growth rate in 2018 and similar growth expected next year — required the acceptance of private business, joint public-private ventures and coops working together. He promised to fight widespread public-sector embezzlement and corruption that makes it virtually impossible to get anything done in Cuba without a series of small bribes.[3]

The modest changes to the draft constitution along with the recent changes to regulations governing private enterprise are seen by William LeoGrande, a U.S. expert on Cuba, as unprecedented responsiveness to organized public pressure. It “indicates both the government’s flexibility and also its recognition that the Cuba of 2018 is not one in which people will simply accept whatever the authorities dictate.” These changes also recognize the economic and financial difficulties facing the island.

Indeed, cash-strapped Cuba plans fresh austerity measures and will pressure the sluggish bureaucracy to tighten its belt and cut red tape to address weak growth, falling export earnings and rising debt.

Cuban Opposition to the Draft Constitution[4]

 According to Diario de Cuba, several Cuban organizations have launched a campaign to defeat this draft in the national referendum. Here are some of their principal objections:

  • The draft maintains the role of the Communist Party as the ” highest leading political force in society” and reaffirms state control of the economy.
  • While recognizing the role of the market and other forms of property, it affirms that Cuba “will never return” to capitalism because “only in socialism and in communism the human being reaches his full dignity.”
  • It does not allow for the existence of other political parties and independent media,
  • It denies the possibility of directly electing the president of the country,

The organizations supporting the “No” vote  are: Artists against Decree 349, Damas de Blanco Association, Asociación Pro Libertad de Prensa (APLP), Independent Trade Union Association of Cuba (ASIC), Citizens Committee for Racial Integration (CIR) ), Cuba Independiente y Democrática (CID), Cuba Piensa, Foro Antitotalitario Unido (FANTU), Cuban Foundation for LGBTI Rights, Cuban Youth Dialogue Table (MDJC), Citizen Movement Reflection and Reconciliation, Cuban Reflection Movement, Maceista Movement for Dignity, Cuban Observatory of Human Rights (OCDH), Observatory of Electoral Rights (ODE), Party for Democracy Pedro Luis Boitel, Project Di.Verso, OCDH Support Network and Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU).

 Amnesty International’s  Criticism of the Draft Constitution[5]

 Amnesty International had the following comments on the revised draft:

  1. At first glance, it appears to strengthen a host of human rights protections. But at a closer look, it quickly limits them to what is already found in national law. . . many of which are contrary to international law and standards.”
  2. On paper, it provides better protections to people accused of crime—like the right to a defence lawyer. In practice, all lawyers work for the state and rarely are prepared or able to mount an adequate defense without losing their job.”
  3. It maintains undue restrictions on freedom of expression. While article 59 ‘recognizes, respects and guarantees the freedom of thought, conscience and expression, Article 60 retains control over the organization and functioning of all media. This is inconsistent with international human rights law and standards, that require states not to have monopoly control over the media and,instead promote a plurality of sources and views.”
  4. It also stands to continue online censorship. On the one hand, the text proposes the “democratization of cyberspace. but on the other it condemns the use of the Internet for ‘subversion’ (Article 16.l). This could allow for criminal laws to be applied arbitrarily against independent journalists and bloggers, who already work in a legal limbo that exposes them to arbitrary detention, and whose work is already being blocked and filtered.”
  5. It continues to place undue restrictions on freedom of assembly, demonstration and association. Article 61 states that these rights, ‘For lawful and peaceful purposes,’ are recognized by the State whenever they are exercised with respect to public order and compliance with the mandatory provisions of the law.’ However, international law and standards are clear that the only legitimate reasons to restrict these rights is for  the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights of others. In practice, protest by political opposition groups and human rights defenders are not tolerated by the authorities. For example, representatives of the Ladies in White, a group of female relatives of prisoners detained on politically motivated grounds, continue to be arbitrarily detained, usually for several hours each weekend, solely for exercising their right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly,”
  6. “It undermines artistic expression. Article 95.h protects artistic expression, but only when it conforms with ‘socialist values.’ Not only is this provision an undue restriction of freedom of expression, but in practice, anyone who dares to speak out against the government is quickly labeled ‘counter-revolutionary.’ One of the first laws signed by President Díaz Canal was Decree 349, a dystopian new law which stands to censor artists.”[6]
  7. “The reforms are unlikely to strengthen the independence of the judiciary or protect the right to fair trial. Article 48 protects the right to be tried before a ‘competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law.’ These are all key elements to ensuring the right to a fair trial. At the same time, Article 8 subordinates all organs of the state – presumably including the judiciary – to ‘socialist values’ which in practice may allow for undue interference by the presidency in judicial decisions. Serious and ongoing limitations on the independence of lawyers and the judiciary have been documented by Amnesty International and the UN for decades.”
  8. “If approved, it will pave the way for Cuba to become the first independent nation in the Caribbean to legalize same sex marriage. The revised Constitution defines marriage as between two people (Article 68) and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity (Article 40). While these provisions are a huge step forward in the path for equality and dignity for all, LGBTI activists say authorities still tightly control LGBTI activism outside of state-sanctioned spaces.”
  9. “It guarantees several economic, social and cultural rights. The proposed Constitution recognizes that human rights cannot be divided and depend on each other to make them happen in a progressive way and without discrimination (Article 39). The state recognizes its responsibility for the protection of older people (Article 73), and people living with disabilities (Article 74). It recognizes the right of people to “dignified housing” (Article 82), and the responsibility of the Cuban state to guarantee the rights to “public health” (Article 83), education (Articles 84), water (Article 87) and food (Article 88). Nevertheless, in a context where the judiciary is not independent, enforcing these rights through the courts will be unrealistic in practice.”
  10. “It commits Cuba to promoting the protection and conservation of the environment and to confronting climate change, which it recognizes as a ‘threat to the survival of the human species’ (Article 16). Cuba could strengthen this commitment further by joining fellow Caribbean countries in signing the Escazú Agreement, a major step forward for the right of people to access information and participate in policies, projects and decisions that affect the environment.”

====================================================

[1] Assoc. Press, Cuban Assembly Approves Draft of New Constitution, N.Y. Times (Dec. 22, 2018); Reuters, Cuban Lawmakers Approve New Constitution Which Heads to Referendum, N.Y. Times (Dec. 22, 2018); Intervention of Romero Acosta in the National Assembly, on the main changes of the Constitution from the Popular consultation, Granma (Dec. 22, 2018).See also prior posts about the new constitution in the ”Cuba’s New Constitution, 2018” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA.

[2] Gamez Torres, After 60 years of revolution in Cuba, cracks in leadership emerge, Miami Herald (Dec. 27, 2018); Reuters, “Reality” Bites: Cuba Plans More Austerity as Finances Worsen, N.Y. Times (Dec. 28, 2018).

[3] See Cuba Relaxes Some New Rules Regarding Private Enterprise, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec.7, 2018).

[4]  Start a campaign for the ‘No’ to the new constitution, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 23, 2018); 20 reasons to vote NO on the constitutional referendum, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 26, 2018); The new Constitution will not reflect the society to which Cubans aspire, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 18, 2018).

[5]  Amnesty Int’l, 10 ways reforms to Cuba’s constitution would impact human rights (Nov. 21, 2018); Tillotson, Ten repercussions for the human rights of the reform of the Constitution of Cuba, El confidencial (Nov. 21, 2018).

[6] See Cuba Tightens Censorship of the Arts, dwkcommentaires.com (Dec. 26, 2018).