Tag: Iran

Support for Immigration from Nicholas Eberstadt and George Will

Nicholas Eberstadt , the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at Washington, D.C.;’s American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has authored a penetrating 23-page article about the upcoming new era of history he calls “the age of depopulation.”[1]

Eberstadt “researches and writes extensively on demographics and economic development generally, and more specifically on international security in the Korean peninsula and Asia. Domestically, he focuses on poverty and social well-being.” The AEI is a  “public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world [and advancing] ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.”[2]

George Will’s Endorsement of Eberstadt’s Article

George Will, the noted columnist for the Washington Post, has endorsed the importance of the Eberstadt article, in a two-page column that distills at least some of Eberstadt’s important points.[3]

Here are the key points of that distillation.

“Earth’s population is going to decline. A lot. This will create social hazards that will challenge political ingenuity. Still, it will be, primarily, a protracted reverberation of a relatively recent, and excellent, event in humanity’s story: the emancipation of women.”

Eberstadt “says a large excess of deaths over births will be driven not by a brute calamity like the bubonic plague but by choices: those regarding fertility, family structures and living arrangements, all reflecting ‘a worldwide reduction in the desire for children.’”

“Today, two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries with below-replacement levels (2.1 births per woman) of fertility. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia has had 17 million more deaths than births. The 27 European Union countries are, collectively, 30 percent below replacement. Last year, France had fewer births than in 1806, when Napoleon won the Battle of Jena. Italy had the fewest since its 1861 unification, Spain the fewest since it started keeping track of this in 1859. America’s “demographic exceptionalism” is despite its fertility rate (1.62 last year), thanks to immigration.”

“Eberstadt says, as the world has become richer, healthier, more educated and more urbanized, ‘the most powerful national fertility predictor’ has been something related to these changes: changes in ‘what women want.’ Volition shapes birth rates because now people everywhere are ‘aware of the possibility of very different ways of life from the ones that confined their parents.’”

“It is possible that ‘the pervasive graying of the population and protracted population decline will hobble economic growth and cripple social welfare systems in rich countries,’ Eberstadt writes. Also: ‘A coming wave of senescence,’ smaller family units, fewer people getting married, ‘high levels of voluntary childlessness,’ ‘dwindling workforces, reduced savings and investment, unsustainable social outlays, and budget deficits’ are the fate of developed nations — unless they make ‘sweeping changes.’”

“Eberstadt is, however, tentatively cheerful: ‘Steadily improving living standards and material and technological advances will still be possible.’ The Earth ‘is richer and better fed than ever before — and natural resources are more plentiful and less expensive (after adjusting for inflation), than ever before,’ and the global population is more ‘extensively schooled’ than ever. What is required is ‘a favorable business climate,’ which is Eberstadt’s shorthand for allowing market forces to wring maximum efficiency from fewer people: ‘Prosperity in a depopulating world will also depend on open economies: free trade in goods, services, and finance to counter the constraints that declining populations otherwise engender.’”

“The ‘demographic tides’ are, Eberstadt writes, running against the quartet of nations (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) that, oblivious of demography, are exaggerating their future powers. China’s next generation ‘is on track to be only half as large as the preceding one.’”

“Furthermore, ‘demographic trends are on course to augment American power.’”

“Although the United States is ‘a sub-replacement society, it has higher fertility levels than any East Asian country and almost all European states,’ Eberstadt says. Even more important, thanks to immigration, ‘the United States is on track to account for a growing share of the rich world’s labor force, youth, and highly educated talent.’”

“One issue in this year’s presidential campaign is germane to the convulsive demographic changes that are coming: immigration. Concerning this, Donald Trump is obtuse, and Kamala Harris has, as about most things, vagueness born of timidity.”

Conclusion

Many thanks to Eberstadt and Will for their illumination of these exceedingly important issues.

This blog has written many posts about the aging and declining population of the U.S. and many of its states and other countries in the world and the challenges that presents and to the importance of the U.S. continuing to develop policies that encourage and welcome immigrants.[4]

With some exceptions, most U.S. citizens should be glad to think and say “I am a proud descendant of immigrants to the U.S.” and support reforms of U.S. immigration law to welcome more immigrants.

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

[1] Eberstadt, The Age of Depopulation: Surviving a World Gone Gray, Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 2024)

[2] Nicolas Eberstadt, Bio & Experience; About {AEI}.

[3] Will, If demography is destiny, bring on immigration. We’re going to need it, Wash. Post (Oct. 23, 2024)

[4] Here is a list of some of the posts to dwkcommentaries regarding the challenges to public policy presented by low birthrates for the U.S. and many other countries and hence the need for more immigrants: U.S. States That Could Have Greatest Benefit from Immigrants Labor (February 28, 2024); Another Documentation of the U.S. Need for Immigrants (April 12, 2024); U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to Record Low (April 25, 2024); Will the World’s Population Cease To Expand? (May 15, 2024); Foreign Physicians Needed To Solve U.S. Doctor Shortage, (June 1, 2024);“Economist” Magazine Also Predicts Lower World Population (June 3, 2024):Pew Research Center Proposes Framework for U.S. Immigration Reform (10/2/24);The Significance of the U.S. Low Birth Rate (10/7/24);.Government Difficulties in Raising Birthrates (10/14/24)..

U.S. Again Ranks Cuba in Worst Category for Human Trafficking

On June 24, the U.S. State Department released its 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report on human trafficking, whose “severe forms” are defined in the U.S. Trafficking Victims Proetection Act (TVPA) as: “sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age” or “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.”[1]

U.S. Secretary of State’s Comments

U.S. Seretary of State Antony J. Blinken opened the State Department’s session with the following message:

  • “Human trafficking is a stain on the conscience of our society.  It fuels crime, corruption, and violence.  It distorts our economies and harms our workers. And it violates the fundamental right of all people to be free.”
  • “Around the globe, an estimated 27 million people are exploited for labor, services, and commercial sex.  Through force, fraud, and coercion, they are made to toil in fields and factories, in restaurants and residences.  Traffickers prey on some of the world’s most marginalized and vulnerable individuals – profiting from their plight.”
  • “The State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report provides the world’s most comprehensive assessment of this abhorrent practice, as well as efforts by governments and stakeholders around the globe to combat it.  By measuring progress in 188 countries – including the United States – we are advancing President Biden’s commitment to prevent trafficking, prosecute perpetrators, and protect survivors.”
  • “Even as this resource covers long-standing forms and methods of trafficking, it also examines the growing role of technology in both facilitating exploitation and countering it.”
  • “Digital tools have amplified the reach, scale, and speed of trafficking. Perpetrators use dating apps and online ads to recruit victims.  They use online platforms to sell illicit sexual content.  They leverage encrypted messaging and digital currencies to evade detection.”
  • “At the same time, technology is also one of our most powerful tools to combat this enduring scourge.  Mobile phones, social media platforms, and artificial intelligence make it possible for advocates and law enforcement to raise greater awareness about the rights of workers and migrants, locate victims and perpetrators of online sexual exploitation, and analyze large amounts of data to detect emerging human trafficking trends.”
  • “As technology makes it easier for traffickers to operate across geographies and jurisdictions, those of us committed to rooting out this horrendous crime – in government, businesses, civil society – can and must work together and coordinate our efforts.”

U.S. Ambassador at Large’s Comments

Cindy Dyer, the U.S. Ambassor at Large, added comments about this report that focused on the importance of partners (survivors, other governments and non-governmental agencies) in combatting this trafficking.

Ranking of Countries

The report ranked all countries of  the world into the following tiers:

  • “Tier 1 Countries whose governments fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.” (30 countries, including the U.S.)
  • “Tier 2 Countries whose governments do not fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards.” (105 countries)
  • “Tier 2 Watch List. Countries whose governments do not fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards, and for which:the estimated number of victims of severe forms of trafficking is very significant or is significantly increasing and the country is not taking proportional concrete actions; or there is a failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking in persons from the previous year, including increased investigations, prosecutions, and convictions of trafficking crimes, increased assistance to victims, and decreasing evidence of complicity in severe forms of trafficking by government officials.” (26 countries)
  • “Tier 3. Countries whose governments do not fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.” In addition, “The TVPA, as amended, lists additional factors to determine whether a country should be on Tier 2 (or Tier 2 Watch List) versus Tier 3: the extent to which the country is a country of origin, transit, or destination for severe forms of trafficking; the extent to which the country’s government does not meet the TVPA’s minimum standards and, in particular, the extent to which officials or government employees have been complicit in severe forms of trafficking; reasonable measures that the government would need to undertake to be in compliance with the minimum standards in light of the government’s resources and capabilities to address and eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons; the extent to which the government is devoting sufficient budgetary resources to investigate and prosecute human trafficking, convict and sentence traffickers; and obtain restitution for victims of human trafficking; and the extent to which the government is devoting sufficient budgetary resources to protect victims and prevent the crime from occurring.” (24 countries, including Cuba. The other countries so ranked are Afghanistan, Algeria, Belarus, Burma, Cambodia, Chad, China (People’s Republic of), Curacao, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of ), Macau, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Sint Maarten, South Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.)

Report’s Comments on Cuba

 In the section entitled “Topics of Special Interest” the report discussed  “Human Trafficking in Cuba’s Labor Export Program.” Here is what it said:

“Each year, the Cuban government sends tens of thousands of workers around the globe under multi-year cooperation agreements negotiated with receiving countries.  While medical missions remain the most prevalent, the Cuban government also profited from other similarly coercive labor export programs, including those involving teachers, artists, athletes and coaches, engineers, forestry technicians, and nearly 7,000 merchant mariners worldwide.   According to a report published by the Cuban government, by the end of 2023, there were more than 22,000 government-affiliated Cuban workers in over 53 countries, and medical professionals composed 75 percent of its exported workforce.  The COVID-19 pandemic increased the need for medical workers in many places around the world, and the Cuban government used the opportunity to expand its reach by increasing the number of its medical personnel abroad through the Henry Reeve Brigades, which Cuba first initiated in 2005 to respond to natural disasters and epidemics.  Experts estimate the Cuban government collects $6 billion to $8 billion annually from its export of services, which includes the medical missions.  The labor export program remains the largest foreign revenue source for the Cuban government.”

“There are serious concerns with Cuba’s recruitment and retention practices surrounding the labor export program.  While the conditions of each international labor mission vary from country to country, the Cuban government subjects all government-affiliated workers to the same coercive laws.  Cuba has a government policy or pattern to profit from forced labor in the labor export program, which includes foreign medical missions.  The Cuban government labels workers who leave the program without completing it as “deserters,” a category that under Cuban immigration law deems them as “undesirable.”  The government bans workers labeled as “deserters” and “undesirables” from returning to Cuba for eight years, preventing them from visiting their families in Cuba.  It categorizes Cuban nationals who do not return to the country within 24 months as having “emigrated.”  Individuals who emigrate lose all their citizen protections, rights under Cuban law, and any property they left behind.  These government policies and legal provisions, taken together, coerce workers and punish those seeking to exercise freedom of movement.  According to credible sources, by 2021, the Cuban government had sanctioned 40,000 professionals under these provisions, and by 2022, there were approximately 5,000 children forcibly separated from their parents due to the government’s policies surrounding the program.”

“Complaints filed with the International Criminal Court and the UN indicate most workers did not volunteer for the program, some never saw a contract or knew their destination, many had their passports confiscated by Cuban officials once they arrived at their destination, and almost all had “minders” or overseers.  According to the complaints and survivors, Cuban heads of mission in the country subjected workers to surveillance, prevented them from freely associating with locals, and imposed a strict curfew.  Cuba also confiscated between 75 and 90 percent of each worker’s salary.  As a result of the well-founded complaints and information about the exploitative nature of Cuba’s labor export program, at the end of 2023, the UN Special Rapporteur for Contemporary Forms of Slavery filed a new communication outlining the persistent concerns with the program, particularly for Cuban workers in Italy, Qatar, and Spain.”

“While exploitation, including forced labor, of workers remains the primary concern with the program, Cuba’s practices can also negatively impact a host country’s healthcare system.  Survivors of the program have reported being forced by the Cuban in-country mission director to falsify medical records and misrepresent critical information to justify their presence and need to local authorities.  Some individuals reported discarding medications, fabricating names, and documenting medical procedures that never occurred.  When medical workers refused to comply with the demands of the Cuban in-country mission director, they faced punishment and retaliation.  While the Cuban government promotes workers as highly skilled medical professionals and specialists, these workers often lack adequate medical training to treat complex conditions.  These practices are unethical, negligent, exploitative, and risk the lives of those they serve.”

“Governments should make efforts to combat human trafficking, and this includes not purchasing goods or services made or provided with forced labor.  Governments that utilize Cuba’s labor export programs despite the serious concerns with the program should at a minimum conduct frequent and unannounced labor inspections to screen these workers for trafficking indicators and employ victim-centered interviewing techniques.  These host governments should ensure all Cuban workers are subject to the same laws, regulations, and protections as for other migrant workers and that they are not brought via a negotiated agreement with the Government of Cuba that limits these protections or exempts Cuban workers from Wage Protections Systems or other tools designed to strengthen transparency.  Officials should ensure workers maintain complete control of their passports and medical certifications and can provide proof of full salary payment to bank accounts under the workers’ control.  They should scrutinize medical reports produced by these workers, offer protection for those who face retaliation and punishment for terminating their employment, and raise awareness of trafficking risks for all foreign workers, including government-affiliated Cuban workers.”

Cuba’s Comments on This Report[2]

On June 24, Granma (the official voice of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba) said, “[A lier is] the neighboring government, that one to the north of the archipelago, which, like the naked king in a children’s story, displays its falsehoods about Cuba, without realizing that its shame is in the air; so arrogant is its arrogance.The current U.S. administration arbitrarily insists on keeping Cuba in the worst category (level 3) in its recently published annual State Department report on human trafficking. The actions of the Washington authorities, marked by political motivations, deserved the response, from . . . the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and President of the Republic, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez [who said]:

“The empire has once again listed Cuba in its manipulative report on human trafficking, an outrageous maneuver in the open war against Cuban medical collaboration. Enough cynicism, Secretary Blinken. You are well aware of our zero-tolerance policy for this criminal practice. To justify the action, the report referred to the year 2023 uses contradictory arguments, based on the defamation of the work of Cuban medical collaboration in more than a hundred countries. Cuba’s cooperation with other peoples in the field of health is so humane that they have to attack it. It bothers them that, in the midst of the lordship of perversity and dishonor with which they pretend to dominate the world, the unsubmissive island brings light to the darkness and health to those who suffer.”

“But it is not fortuitous to include Cuba in spurious lists, to consider the island in the worst category in its report on human trafficking allows the White House to justify the blockade and the endless saga of coercive measures aimed at starving its people.”

“It would seem that the world is upside down: those who promote human trafficking, encouraging illegal departures, those who hinder the normal migratory flow between the two nations, are the ones who judge and punish.”

“Those who do not allow – to cite just one example – our baseball players to benefit from an agreement that prevents them from falling into the arms of human traffickers to reach the MLB, are the same ones who seek to condemn those who maintain a zero tolerance policy against human trafficking.”

Conclusion

This is a very complicated report, and the State Department website says, “This posted version is not fully accessible, meaning it may be inaccessible or incompatible with assistive technology. An accessible version will be posted as soon as the ongoing updates are concluded.” (Thus, there may be errors in this post and readers are invited to note any such corrections.)

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

[1]U.S. State Dep’t, 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report (June 2024); The US considers that the regime ‘is not making significant efforts’ to combat human trafficking, Diario de Cuba (June 24, 2024).

[2] Capote, Accusing Cuba of human trafficking, another ruse to justify economic warfare, Granma (June 26, 2024).

U.S. Excludes Cuba from List of Non-Cooperators Against Terrorism     

On May 15 U.S. Secretary of Antony Blinken released the State Department’s annual list of the following four states that did not fully cooperate with the U.S. anti-terrorism efforts: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Syria and Venezuela. [1]

The Secretary also stated that the U.S. had determined that the circumstances for the [prior] certification of Cuba for this list had changed and thus the new list excluded Cuba. The changes were Colombia’s cancellation of its request for Cuba to extradite commanders of ELN (guerrilla group) and the 2023 resumption of U.S.-Cuba police cooperation, including the fight against terrorism

The Secretary closed by stating that this list is not the same as the U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, which by statute establishes specific legal criteria for recission which have not been met by Cuba.

Reactions

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez also had a similar reaction. He said, “All political manipulation of the issue should cease and our arbitrary and unjust inclusion on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism should end.”

On May 16, the Department’s Principal Deputy Spokesperson, Vidant Patel, made the following response to a journalist’s question about these issues:

  • “So the designation of a state sponsor of terrorism is a totally separate process from an NFCC certification. There have been countries certified as NFCCs without being designated as state sponsors of terrorism, and vice versa. U.S. law establishes specific statutory criteria for rescinding any state sponsor of terrorism designation, and any review of Cuba’s status on this would need to be based on the law and the criteria established by Congress.”
  • “So to take a step back on this NFCC . . . process, . . . the department determined that the circumstances for Cuba’s certifications as not fully cooperating country have changed from 2022 to 2023. First, Cuba’s refusal to engage with Colombia on extradition requests for National Liberation Army members supported Cuba’s NFCC certification for 2022. In August of 2022, pursuant to an order from Colombian President Petro, Colombia’s attorney general announced that arrest warrant would be suspended against 17 ELN commanders, including those whose extradition Colombia had previously requested from Cuba. Moreover, the U.S. and Cuba resumed law enforcement cooperation in 2023, including on counterterrorism.”
  • “Therefore, we’ve determined that Cuba’s continued certification as a not fully cooperating country was no longer appropriate. . . .{S]ales of defense articles to Cuba will continue to be restricted under Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act given Cuba’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism. Moreover, Cuba remains subject to a incredibly comprehensive embargo still.”
  • “[A state]can be a cooperator on counterterrorism, but we still believe that there are actions that they are undertaking that of the support of terrorist activities. I’m not going to get into those specifically from up here.”

As a blogger interested in legal issues relating to Cuba and a frequent commentator on the U.S. listing Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, I was surprised by this related category of non-cooperators against terrorism.

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

[1] [State] Department Press Briefing, May 16, 2024; The US Excludes Cuba from the list of countries that do not cooperate in the fight against terrorism, Diario de Cuba (May 15, 2024). Torres, U.S. Removes Cuba from list of countries ‘not cooperating fully’ with anti-terrrorism efforts, Miami Herald (May 16, 2024), As a non-subscriber to the Miami Herald, this blogger was unable to read this article. We would welcome a comment of any additional details in this article from a reader who has access to that newspaper

 

 

Cuba’s Current Economic and Political Crises

Introduction[1]

At least by early December 2023, it was evident that Cuba was experiencing a horrible economic crisis. One commentator put it this way: “Cuba is going through the worst crisis it has experienced in decades, with widespread shortages of food and medicines, rolling blackouts and a sky-high 400% annual inflation rate. The calls on the communist leadership to open up the economy to the market are getting loud, even from close political allies.”

t also was a Cuban political crisis on how to respond to this economic crisis.  As John Kavulich, the president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council based in New York City, said in early December, Cuban “bureaucrats have become more reluctant to take risks since there is uncertainty about who is really in charge.” They are “either frightened or untrusting, and certainly not risk-takers.”

The most vivid criticism of this situation came from Roberto Alvarez-Quinones, a Cuban journalist, economist and historian who after working in Cuba for Granma and Cuban television stations has been doing that work in Los Angeles, California. He said, “Never in the history of the entire West has there been such an overwhelming economic and social crisis that it has affected practically 99% of the total population of a country, without having been caused by a natural catastrophe or a war, but by the Government of the nation.”

Cuban Government’s Response[2]

 At a December 20-22, 2023, meeting of Cuba’s National Assembly, the Minister of the economy and planning, Alejandro Gil Fernandez, reported that for 2023 Cuba’s GDP fell almost 2%; exports were $770 million below predictions; food production was less than that for 2022;  tourism, although more than the prior year, had a yield only 69% of the 2019 figures; overall production was down; there were shortages of supplies and fuels; and health care and education sectors where harmed by loss of workers to emigration.

Fernandez attributed Cuba’s inflation to international price hikes, the government’s release of money to finance its budget deficit, fewer goods being produced, the agricultural sector being burdened by labor shortages, high costs and low yields and Cuba being forced to import over 70% of the food that [was] being consumed.

Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz said the government’s lack of control over production and distribution “adversely affects production by state entities and lets currency exchanges on the illegal market determine the pricing of products from the non-state sector.”

President Diaz-Canel, of course, criticized the U.S. embargo (blockade), but admitted that the Cuban government had made some errors in the “design and implementation of currency unification,” “approving new economic actors without performance norms having been established” and “the complexity of making decisions in a context of extreme tension [and of] commitment to preserving social conquests.”

All of these “difficult realities” were summarized by W.T. Whitney, Jr. (an U.S. political journalist focusing on Latin America) as “the adverse effects of diminished tourism, inflation, and emigration; social inequalities based on varying access to resources; production stymied by shortages of resources; inadequate food production; lack of buying-power for most Cubans, and for importing necessary goods; and the near impossibility of securing foreign investment.”

To meet these problems, Whitney said, Cuba was preparing these responses: “further decentralization of political and economic administration; cutbacks on the expenditure of central government funds; reduced subsidies for the purchase of water, fuel, transport, and electricity by business entities; adjustment of import tariffs to favor the availability of resources for production; capturing more tourist dollars; protecting state-operated production entities; fixing prices; and producing more food.”

Moreover, Whitney said, the U.S. needs to cancel its embargo (blockade) of Cuba and remove Cuba from the U.S. list of countries that are sponsors of international terrorism.

Criticism of Cuban Government Responses[3]

Javier Perex Capdevila, Doctor of Economic Sciences and Professor at the University of Guantanamo, said the Government measures are based on cutting subsidies, but “there are no measures to get out of economic stagnation and . . . to reduce inflation, accompanied by a fiscal deficit that entails generating more liquid money which does not stimulate the economy, but rather inflation. The measures that have been announced in a confusing and ambiguous manner are supposed to achieve macroeconomic stabilization, but that is not a real solution . . and there is no guarantee that they will work.”

In addition. Capdevila noted that increases in long-distance transportation rates will adversely affect many people who have to use such transportation to reach competent medical personnel. He said, “You cannot save a country if you do not save the people.”

Pedro Monreal, a Cuban economist, criticized the purported justification for increasing black market prices for currencies by saying the government had not designed that market. Monreal said this was “a fig leaf to cover up the poor design of the ‘organization that made this informal market necessary.’”   The Cuban State did something worse in 2020 when “it designed a defective official exchange market with an overvalued [peso].” Monreal also “predicted more inflation” this year with a government deficit of 18.5% of gross domestic product.

Cuban economist Emilio Morales commented on the continued emigration of Cubans in 2023 while there was a 3.3% decrease in remittances to those on the island due to the need for those now in other countries to pay for their outbound transportation and expenses of living in other countries on their “march for family freedom.” Morales concluded that this result shows “the systemic crisis demands radical reforms and the entrenchment of the mafia regime in its totalitarian model blocks any possibility of survival. History teaches that bayonets cannot sustain a regime for long, indefinitely without fundamental reforms.”

The most recent news about Cuba’s laws affecting private enterprises was the January 16th announcement of new income tax regulations. Now “private sector employees will have to pay a 20% income tax on earnings above 30,000 Cuban pesos, about $109 per month. That’s a 15% tax rate increase from the previous scale set up in 2021, which imposed a 5% income tax for earnings over 9,510 Cuban pesos. Business owners must automatically deduct the tax payments monthly, the decree says.”

This recent announcement is in addition to the tax burden on Cuban private businesses: 35% tax on profits, a 10% tax on sales or services provided, a 5% payroll tax, a one percent revenue tax to support local governments and contributions to social security equal to 14% of workers’ salaries. Owners of the [private businesses] also have to pay up to 20% taxes on dividends.

Such private businesses “cannot hire more than 100 employees, they cannot be involved in economic activities handled by the state, such as telecommunications, and must import products and supplies through state companies working as intermediaries. According to the new regulations published this week, they can also be hit with price controls at any time ‘when circumstances advise it to achieve more favorable prices for the population.’”

At about the same time as this announcement of new taxes on private enterprises, the Cuban government announced a new “’ethics code’ for government officials and members of the Communist Party and similar organizations that mandate them to ‘be faithful to socialism,’ fight against the ‘genocidal’ U.S. embargo and ‘be loyal to the Cuban Communist Party, the Revolution… and to the Revolution´s Commander in Chief, Fidel Castro.”

Conclusion[4]

This blog consistently has advocated for U.S. repeal of the embargo (blockade) of Cuba and the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. However, all of the blame for Cuba’s current crises cannot be attributed to these U.S. measures. Indeed, the U.S. now is the sixth largest exporter to Cuba.

Moreover, now the U.S. is preoccupied with the Israel-Hamas and the Russia-Ukraine wars, problems with Iran, North Korea, China, Yemen and the Red Sea and the problems created by large number of immigrants at our southwestern border. As a result, the U.S. does not have the time and resources to devote to Cuba’s problems and U.S. policies regarding same.

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

[1] Analysis of Cuba’s Current Economic Crisis, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 5, 2023); Almost All Cubans Suffer Worst Economic Crisis in the History of the Western Hemisphere, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 11, 2023);

[2] Whitney, A revolution in trouble: Cuba’s government, People’s World (Jan 8, 2024).

[3] ‘You can’t save a country if you don’t save the people.’ a Cuban economics doctor explodes in response to the package, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 13, 2024); Another rise in the price of the dollar and the euro on the Cuban black market, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 15, 2024); Emigration grows, but remittances to Cuba sink, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 16, 2024);Through resolutions, the Castro regime intends to stop the astronomical fiscal deficit that it approved, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 17, 2024); Reyes, The economic package opens a political crisis in the Government of Cuba, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 17, 2024); Torres, As the economy craters, the Cuban government hits private-sector workers with tax hike, Miami Herald (Jan. 18, 2024).

[4] E.g., posts listed in sections “Cuba: State Sponsor of Terrorism?” and “U.S. Embargo of Cuba” in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20]; Cuba Still on U.S. List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 2, 2023);U.S. Senators and Representatives Demand Ending of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 12, 2024); COMMENT: Another Congressman Calls for Ending Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan.13, 2024); U.S. Increasing Exports to Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 12, 2024).

U.S. Accuses Cuba of Attempted Interference in U.S. Elections in 2022

On December 18, 2023, the U.S. intelligence community released a redacted report that claimed the Cuban government conducted influence operations in the United States “aimed at denigrating specific U.S. candidates in Florida” during the 2022 midterm elections and that “Cuban officials worked to build relationships with members of the American media who held critical views of Havana’s critics in Congress, and that a network of social media accounts ‘almost certainly covertly tied’ to Cuba ‘amplified derogatory content’ on U.S. politicians viewed as hostile to the Cuban state.” In addition, the report said. “The Cuban government sought to influence perceptions of politicians belonging to both major U.S. political parties” and “Public Cuban government statements indicate that Havana views Cuban-Americans in Miami as having an outsized influence on U.S. policy in Cuba.”[1]

However, this declassified report “does not name any specific individuals who were targeted, and much of the report’s section on Cuba’s activities are redacted. The assessment also does not say how effective Havana’s influence campaign was on Florida’s elections” although it did say that Cuba’s efforts were “smaller in scale and more narrowly targeted” than the other three countries that were mentioned (Russia, China and Iran).

After the release of this report, an unnamed White House official referred a reporter to the intelligence community for comment on the report and to the State Department and Treasury Department on whether the U.S. plans any retaliatory response to Cuba’s election meddling.[2]

This was an insufficient response according to several Florida politicians.

Senator Marco Rubio said, “It should not be a surprise to anyone that the Cuban regime attempted to influence the 2022 midterm elections, though such ‘participation’ in our democratic process is particularly ironic given the regime’s disdain for any semblance of democracy at home. The Biden administration must immediately condemn these actions, make clear they will not be tolerated, and expel Cuban diplomats from U.S. soil. Continued failure to treat Cuba like the tyrannical spying regime that it is only emboldens it.”

Rep. María Elvira Salazar, R-Miami, said, “this blatant interference in American elections must not be permitted and must be met by an immediate response from the United States government. The Cuban regime seeks to topple their enemies and plant their allies and agents in positions of power in the United States. South Florida politicians who oppose the regime are being attacked through the communist propaganda their mouthpieces spread.”

U.S. Rep. Carlos Gimenez said during a press conference that he believes he, Salazar and Miami’s other Republican congressman, Mario Diaz-Balart, were targeted, though he said he had not been told that directly. All three are Cuban Americans. “They redacted a whole bunch but you can infer from what you can see who exactly it was that they were talking about.”

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

[1] U.S. National Intelligence Council, Foreign Threats to the 2022 US Elections, Declassified (12/23/23); Wilner, U.S. intelligence finds Cuba tried to influence Florida races during 2022 elections, Miami Herald (Dec. 19, 2023).

[2] Wilner, White House says it will not tolerate Cuban efforts to influence U.S. elections, Miami Herald (Dec.20, 2023).

 

Secretary Pompeo’s Reactions to U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights’ Report     

On July 16, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo gave an immediate response [1] to the Report of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights that was summarized in a prior post.  Now we look at some of the significant points of Pompeo’s response.

Pompeo’s Introduction by Chair Glendon’s 

Chair Mary Ann Glendon said that the importance of the Commission’s work has been highlighted by several recent developments. First, Freedom House recently reported that “political and civil rights worldwide have declined this year for the 14th consecutive year and that half the world’s population – 4 billion people – currently live under autocratic or quasi-authoritarian regimes.”[3] Second, “some powerful countries are now openly challenging the basic premises of the great post-World War II human rights project, and by challenging the premises, they are undermining the already fragile international consensus behind the ideas that no nation should be immune from outside scrutiny of how it treats its own citizens and that every human being is entitled to certain fundamental rights simply by virtue of being human.” Third, “Another set of threats to human freedom and dignity are emerging in technological advances – artificial intelligence, biotechnology, data collection, sophisticated surveillance techniques.” Fourth, “millions of women and men are suffering arbitrary imprisonment, torture, and those women and men are looking to the United States as a beacon of hope and encouragement.”

Pompeo’s Speech

“These . . . unalienable rights . . . are a foundation upon which this country was built. They are central to who we are and to what we care about as Americans.”

“America’s founders didn’t invent the ‘unalienable rights,’ but stated very clearly in the Declaration of Independence that they are held as ‘self-evident’ that human beings were ‘created equal’  and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… among [those] are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’”

“The report emphasizes foremost among these rights are property rights and religious liberty. No one can enjoy the pursuit of happiness if you cannot own the fruits of your own labor, and no society – no society can retain its legitimacy or a virtuous character without religious freedom.” (Emphasis added.)

“Our founders knew that faith was also essential to nurture the private virtue of our citizens.”

George Washington, in “his now famous letter from 1790, . . .  to the Jews of Newport,. . .  proudly noted that the United States ‘gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’” But “our founders also knew the fallen nature of mankind. [As] Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 10: ‘Men are ambitious, vindictive, rapacious.’ So in their wisdom, they established a system that acknowledged our human failings, checked our worst instincts, and ensured that government wouldn’t trample on these unalienable rights.”

“Limited government structured into our documents protects these rights. As the [Commission] report states, ‘majorities are inclined to impair individual freedom, and public officials are prone to putting their private preferences and partisan ambitions ahead of the public interest.’”

In 1838, Abraham Lincoln, then a 28-year-old lawyer, gave a moving speech to the local young man’s lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, when he said, ‘We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us.’

“This is still true of America today. America is fundamentally good and has much to offer the world, because our founders recognized the existence of God-given, unalienable rights and designed a durable system to protect them.”

“The . . . societal upheavals that are currently roiling our nation . . .directly ties to our ability to put our founding principles at the core of what we do as Americans and as diplomats all across the world.”

[We must admit, however,] “that at our nation’s founding our country fell far short of securing the rights of all. The evil institution of slavery was our nation’s gravest departure from these founding principles. We expelled Native Americans from their ancestral lands. And our foreign policy, too, has not always comported with the idea of sovereignty embedded in the core of our founding.”

“But . . . the nation’s founding principles gave us a standard by which we could see the gravity of our failings and a political framework that gave us the tools to ultimately abolish slavery and enshrine into law equality without regard to race. . . . From Seneca Falls, to Brown vs. Board of Education, to the peaceful marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Americans have always laid claims to their promised inheritance of unalienable rights.”

“The New York Times’s 1619 Project – so named for the year that the first slaves were transported to America – wants you to believe that our country was founded for human bondage, that America’s institutions continue to reflect the country’s acceptance of slavery at our founding. . . [and] that Marxist ideology [correctly says] America is only the oppressors and the oppressed. [This 1619 Project] is a slander on our great people. Nothing could be further from the truth of our founding and the rights about which this report speaks.”  (Emphasis added.)

The Commission rejects these notions and “reminds us [of] a quote from Frederick Douglas, himself a freed slave, who saw the Constitution as a ‘glorious, liberty document.’”

“If we truly believe . . . that rights are unalienable, inviolate, enduring, indeed, universal, just as the founders did, then defending them ought to be the bedrock of our every diplomatic endeavor.”

“Our dedication to unalienable rights doesn’t mean we have the capacity to tackle all human rights violations everywhere and at all times. Indeed, our pursuit of justice may clash with hard political realities that thwart effective action.”

“Americans have not only unalienable rights, but also positive rights, rights granted by governments, courts, multilateral bodies. Many are worth defending in light of our founding; others aren’t.”

Prioritizing which rights to defend is also hard. [According to a research group, there are] 64 human rights-related agreements, encompassing 1,377 provisions, between the United Nations and the Council of Europe alone. That’s a lot of rights. And the proliferation of rights is part of the reason why this report is so important.” This report “has provided us the [following] essential questions to ask:

  • Are our foreign policy decisions rooted in our founding principles?
  • Are the decisions consistent with our constitutional norms and procedures?
  • Are they rooted in the universal principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]?
  • Does a new rights claim . . .represent a clear consensus across different traditions and across different cultures, as the Universal Declaration did, or is it merely a narrower partisan or ideological interest?”

“The great and noble human rights project of the 20th century, [however.] is in crisis. Authoritarian regimes perpetrate gross human rights violations every day, all around the world. Too many human rights advocacy groups have traded proud principles for partisan politics. And we see multilateral human rights bodies failing us. The United Nations Human Rights Council does the bidding of dictators and averts its gaze from the worst human rights offenses of our times. [In addition,] international courts too have largely abandoned unalienable rights. The International Criminal Court is training its sights on Americans and Israelis, not the ayatollahs of the world. And the incurious media rarely examines any of these failings.”(Emphasis added.)

“The vital 20th century human rights project has come unmoored, and it needs a re-grounding. The Commission’s work marks an important contribution to America’s effort to address this human rights crisis, and it’s a good time to do so.”

[As the report says,] “we must cultivate the ‘seedbeds of human rights.’ Free and flourishing societies cannot be nurtured only by the hand of government. They must be nurtured through patriotic educators, present fathers and mothers, humble pastors, next-door neighbors, steady volunteers, honest businesspeople, and so many other faithful, quiet citizens.” (Emphasis added.)

“We have the responsibility to educate and advocate. Our diplomatic posts all over the world have human rights officers working to promote American values. We can shine a light on abuses, and as we do when we issue our annual reports, we take stock of the world’s efforts on religious freedom, on human rights, and on human trafficking.” (Emphasis added.)

“We too can empower the people of other nations to further their social and economic rights. Our USAID does this essential work, as does our W-GDP program, which helps women flourish as entrepreneurs. Women, sadly, suffer the most human rights abuses. We can help them do better.” (Emphasis added.)

“We can work productively too with other nations. We’ve done that. We’ve worked with 60-plus nations to help the Venezuelan people recover democracy from the Maduro dictatorship.”

We also “ have punitive tools too, such as sanctions that we’ve levied on human rights abusers in Iran and in Cuba, and a recent advisory that we put out about Xinjiang and companies doing business there. We want to make sure that no American business is knowingly benefiting from slave labor.” (Emphasis added.)

“But to do so effectively, we must insist on the rightness and the relevance of America’s founding principles. Surely, if America loses them, she loses her soul and our capacity to do good around the world.”

“I am confident that the American star will shine across the heavens, so long as we keep a proper understanding of unalienable rights at the center of our unending quest to secure freedom for our own people and all of mankind. The report that you worked on will ensure that we have a better chance to accomplish that.”

Glendon-Pompeo Conversation

Immediately after Pompeo’s speech, Chair Glendon and Pompeo had a brief conversation.  One of her questions was: “Why is human rights advocacy is such an important part of our national interest?”

Pompeo responded, “Our capacity to have influence around the world . . . stems from our confidence in ourselves and our deep commitment to the fact that this nation is exceptional, because we rallied around this idea of unalienable rights. [We have developed annual ministerial meetings to gather] religious leaders of all faiths from all around the world. It’s the largest gathering of religious leaders every year to talk about these set of rights and religious freedom. . . . Some two-thirds of the people in the world live in places that are extremely challenged with the absence of religious freedom and religious liberty, the simple chance to exercise their conscientious views on faith.” (Emphasis added.)

Yet Another Pompeo Speech

On July 17th (the very next day after the above speech], Pompeo and his wife were in West Des Moines, Iowa for a speech—”My Faith, My Work, My Country”[3]— at the Family Leader Summit.[4] Here a few things he said.

“We [at the State Department] have a responsibility to keep you all safe. We advocate too for American businesses abroad, and help create jobs in every state in the union. And we represent your principles. We’ve executed a foreign policy that American families in Des Moines, in Dubuque, and in Davenport can believe in. It’s a pro-national security foreign policy focused on America. It’s a pro-religious freedom foreign policy. And it’s a 100 percent pro-life foreign policy.” (Emphasis added.)

Later, he added, “America sets the tone for the rest of the world in this respect, and our administration has defended the rights of unborn like no other administration in history. Abortion quite simply isn’t a human right. It takes a human life. You all – you all know this. The Psalmist says in Psalm 139: ‘You knit me together in my mother’s womb.’ This is when life begins, full stop. So we’ve reinstated the Mexico City Policy, so that not a single dime of American taxpayer money will ever go to a foreign NGO that performs active abortions anywhere in the world. In the fall of last year, . . . Secretary Azar at Health and Human Services and I, we mobilized 20 countries to deliver a joint statement at the UN criticizing pro-abortion language in UN documents. This has not happened before. We said clearly that “there is no international right to an abortion.” (Emphasis added.)

He also had extensive negative comments about China and Iran and positive words about Israel.

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

[1] State Dep’t, Pompeo Speech: Unalienable Rights and the Securing of Freedom (July 16, 2020)[“Pompeo Speech”].  (The above post highlights some points for discussion in a subsequent post.) See also Pompeo, American diplomacy must again ground itself in the nation’s founding principles, Wash. Post (July 16, 2020); Assoc. Press, Pompeo Says US Should Limit Which Human Rights It Defends, N.Y. Times (July 16, 2020)

[2]  Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2020: A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy..

[3] State Dep’t, Pompeo Speech: My Faith, My Work, My Country (July 17, 2020). 

[4] The Family Leader, which is based in Urbandale IA, is an organization that is focused on marriage as “a permanent lifelong commitment between a man and a woman;” on sanctity of life for “protection of life from conception to natural death;” on affirming “ sexual relations within the bond of marriage, and oppose distortions of sexuality or special rights to those practicing distorted sexual behavior.” (The Family Leader, Issues we are focused on.)

 

Comments on Cuba by the U.S. Commander of U.S. Southern Command       

On April 17, Admiral Craig S. Faller, the Commander, U.S. Southern Command, gave a special briefing focused on “the enhanced counternarcotics operations led by [the U.S. Defense Department’s] Southern Command,” which “is responsible for providing contingency planning, operations, and security cooperation in its assigned Area of Responsibility which includes Central America, South America and the Caribbean (except U.S. commonwealths, territories, and possessions) and for the force protection of U.S. military resources at these locations.” .” [1]

Most of the comments were about Venezuela, but in his opening remarks the commander said, “[T]he security of the Western Hemisphere is [affected by] external state actors and  . . . malign actors like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Iran and others – external state actors that don’t share the democratic values, and they thrive on the instability created by transnational criminal organizations.”

Thereafter, the Commander did not give a direct answer to a question from a journalist from the Miami Herald about whether there was any evidence that Cuba was involved in drug trafficking with Venezuela. Instead, the Commander said, “[T]he connection between the illegitimate Maduro regime and Cuba is strong and thick, thick as ticks, and Maduro owes his position in power to the Cuban influence, and it surrounds him.  His presidential guard is primarily Cuban; the intelligence service is completely infiltrated by Cubans.  So, at the end of the day, as Special Representative Abrams has stated, Maduro must go and the Cubans must be out.  And their influence is strong, so there’s a strong connection between the Maduro government and Cuba, and by propping up the Maduro regime, Cubans have supported the illicit activities that Maduro is involved in, undoubtedly.”

Nor did he directly answer a follow-up question from another journalist as to whether there was any evidence that Cuba was trafficking drugs with Venezuela. The  Commander essentially repeated his earlier answer by saying, “So as I stated, the relationship between Cuba and Venezuela is extremely close, and there are thousands . . . of Cubans in Venezuela supporting the Maduro regime: the intelligence services, the protective services.  And so the extent to which Maduro owes his survival to his Cuban patronage is clear and unambiguous, and so undoubtedly Cuba is aware of the illicit activities that Maduro is conducting through narcotrafficking, through mining, through the myriad of ineffective state-run enterprises that steal from the Venezuelan people.  So there’s just no way that there’s not a connection in all respects. [However, he could not reveal details of the intelligence.] But as Special Representative Abrams has stated, Maduro must go and the Cubans are a key piece of making that happen.”

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

[1] State Dep’t, Telephonic Press Briefing with Admiral Craig Faller, Commander, U.S. Southern Command (April 17, 2020).

 

U.S. State Department Reiterates Criticism of Cuba’s Human Rights

On March 11, the U.S. State Department released its latest annual report on human rights around the world and repeated its criticisms of Cuba on this subject.

Secretary Pompeo’s Introduction of the Report[1]

The Secretary used these words to announce the release of the report:  “As our founding documents remind us, nothing is more fundamental to our national identity than our belief in the rights and dignity of every single human being.  It’s in our Declaration of Independence.”  With the U.S. Declaration of Independence of 1776 as its foundation, “The State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights is exploring the deep roots of America’s foundational belief in these ideals, and I look forward to receiving the commission’s work sometime around the Fourth of July of this year, a fitting time.” (Emphasis added.)

The Secretary then shifted to highlighting the report’s discussion of “human rights abuses . . . that are happening in China, Iran, Venezuela, and in Cuba.” His comments on Cuba focused entirely on the situation of Cuban dissident José Daniel Ferrer, which will be covered in a subsequent post.

The Executive Summary of the Report on Cuba[2]

 “Cuba is an authoritarian state led by Miguel Diaz-Canel, president of the republic, with former president Raul Castro serving as the first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party (CCP). Despite ratifying a new constitution on February 24, Cuba remains a one-party system in which the constitution states the CCP is the only legal political party and the highest political entity of the state.”

“The Ministry of Interior exercises control over the police, internal security forces, and the prison system. The ministry’s National Revolutionary Police is the primary law enforcement organization. Specialized units of the ministry’s state security branch are responsible for monitoring, infiltrating, and suppressing independent political activity. The national leadership, including members of the military, maintained effective control over the security forces.”

“Significant human rights issues included: reports of abuse of political dissidents, detainees, and prisoners by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detentions; significant problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners; and arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy. The government severely restricted freedom of the press, used criminal libel laws against persons critical of leadership, and engaged in censorship and site blocking. There were limitations on academic and cultural freedom; restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly; denial of freedom of association, including refusal to recognize independent associations; restrictions on internal and external freedom of movement and severe restrictions of religious freedom. Political participation was restricted to members of the ruling party, and elections were not free and fair. There was official corruption, trafficking in persons, outlawing of independent trade unions, and compulsory labor.”

“On February 24, the country adopted a new constitution in a coerced referendum marred by violent government repression against those that opposed the proposed constitution. On February 12, for example, 200 police and security agents raided the homes of leaders of the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU) [which is headed by José Daniel Ferrer] for openly campaigning against the draft constitution, detaining and reportedly beating UNPACU members. Other opponents reported that the government had blocked their email and texts to keep them from disseminating opposition campaign materials. Article 5 of the constitution enshrines one-party rule by the CCP, disallowing for additional political expression outside of that structure. Although the new constitution adds explicit protections of freedom and human rights, including habeas corpus, authorities did not respect them, nor did the courts enforce them.”

“Government officials, at the direction of their superiors, committed most human rights abuses and failed to investigate or prosecute those who committed the abuses. Impunity for the perpetrators remained widespread.”

Some Negative Details of the Report

Disappearance (Section 1.B): “There were confirmed reports of long-term disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities. There were multiple reports of detained activists whose whereabouts were unknown for days or weeks because the government did not register these detentions; many detentions occurred in unregistered sites.”

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Section 1.C):

  • “There were reports that members of the security forces intimidated and physically assaulted human rights and prodemocracy advocates, political dissidents, and other detainees and prisoners during detention and imprisonment, and that they did so with impunity. Some detainees and prisoners also endured physical abuse by prison officials or by other inmates with the acquiescence of guards.”
  • “There were reports police assaulted detainees or were complicit in public harassment of and physical assaults on peaceful demonstrators.”
  • “State security officials frequently deployed to countries such as Venezuela and Nicaragua, where they trained and supported other organizations in their use of repressive tactics and human rights abuses, and sometimes participated in them directly.”
  • “Prison conditions continued to be harsh and life threatening. Prisons were overcrowded, and facilities, sanitation, and medical care were deficient. There were reports that prison officials assaulted prisoners.”
  • “The government subjected prisoners who criticized the government or engaged in hunger strikes and other forms of protest to extended solitary confinement, assaults, restrictions on family visits, and denial of medical care.”
  • “The government did not permit monitoring of prison conditions by independent international or domestic human rights groups and did not permit access to detainees by international humanitarian organizations.”

Arbitrary Arrest or Detention (Section 1.D):

  • “Arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions increased, becoming a routine government method for controlling independent public expression and political activity.”
  • Authorities “routinely ignored” the requirement to “furnish suspects a signed ‘report of detention,’ noting the basis, date, and location of any detention in a police facility and a registry of personal items seized during a police search.”
  • “Police used laws against public disorder, contempt, lack of respect, aggression, and failure to pay minimal or arbitrary fines as ways to detain, threaten, and arrest civil society activists. Police officials routinely conducted short-term detentions, at times assaulting detainees.”
  • “The law allows for ‘preventive detention’ for up to four years of individuals not charged with an actual crime, based on a subjective determination of “precriminal dangerousness,” which is defined as the ‘special proclivity of a person to commit crimes, demonstrated by conduct in manifest contradiction of socialist norms,’ which is sometimes used “to silence peaceful political opponents.”
  • “There were reports that defendants met with their attorneys for the first time only minutes before their trials and were not informed of the basis for their arrest within the required 168-hour period;” that bail “typically [was] not granted to those arrested for political activities;” that “police and security forces at times relied on aggressive and physically abusive tactics, threats, and harassment during questioning;” that “authorities may detain a person without charge indefinitely;” that officials often detain “suspects longer than the legally mandated period without informing them of the nature of the arrest, allowing them to contact family members, or affording them legal counsel;” that the “government [often] held detainees for months or years in investigative detention, in both political and nonpolitical cases.”

Denial of Fair Public Trial (Section 1.E):

  • “[P]olitically motivated trials were at times held in secret, with authorities citing exceptions for crimes involving ‘state security’ or ‘extraordinary circumstances.’”
  • “[C]ourts regularly failed to protect or observe these [due process] rights. The law presumes defendants to be innocent until proven guilty, but authorities often ignored this, placing the burden on defendants to prove innocence.”
  • “Criteria for admitting evidence were arbitrary and discriminatory.” In cases involving “‘crimes against the security of the state,’ defense attorneys were not allowed access until charges were filed.”
  • For charges of ‘precriminal dangerousness,’ “the state must show only that the defendant has “proclivity” for crime, so an actual criminal act need not have occurred.”
  • “The government continued to hold political prisoners and detainees but denied it did so and refused access to its prisons and detention centers by international humanitarian organizations and the United Nations.”
  • There are “political prisoners,’ but details are difficult to obtain.
  • “No courts allowed claimants to bring lawsuits seeking remedies for human rights violations.”

Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence (Section 1.E): 

  • “Reportedly government officials routinely and systematically monitored correspondence and communications between citizens, tracked their movements, and entered homes without legal authority and with impunity.”
  • “Covert techniques to obtain information . . . . included information gathering by undercover officers, voice recording, location monitoring, filming, communications intercepts, and surreptitious access to computer systems.”
  • “The Ministry of Interior employed a system of informants and neighborhood committees, known as “Committees for the Defense of the Revolution,” to monitor government opponents and report on their activities.”

Freedom of Expression, Including for the Press” (Section 2.A):

  • “Laws banning criticism of government leaders and distribution of antigovernment propaganda carry penalties ranging from three months to 15 years in prison.”
  • “The government did not tolerate public criticism of government officials or programs and limited public debate of issues considered politically sensitive.”
  • “[S]ome religious groups reported increased restrictions to express their opinions during sermons and at religious gatherings.”
  • “The government directly owned all print and broadcast media outlets and all widely available sources of information.”
  • “The government harassed and threatened any independent citizen journalists who reported on human rights violations in the country.”
  • “The law prohibits distribution of printed materials considered ‘counterrevolutionary’ or critical of the government.”
  • “The government used a combination of website blocking, pressure on website operators, arrests, intimidation, imprisonment, and extralegal surveillance to censor information critical to the regime and to silence its critics.”
  • “The government restricted academic freedom and controlled the curricula at all schools and universities, emphasizing the importance of reinforcing ‘revolutionary ideology’ and ‘discipline.’”

Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association (Section 2.B):

  • The constitutional “limited right of assembly . . . is subject to the requirement that it may not be ‘exercised against the existence and objectives of the socialist state.’ The law requires citizens to request authorization for organized meetings of three or more persons.”
  • “Independent activists, as well as political parties other than the CCP, faced greater obstacles, and state security forces often suppressed attempts to assemble, even for gatherings in private dwellings and in small numbers. The government refused to allow independent demonstrators or public meetings by human rights groups or any others critical of any government activity.”
  • “The government, using undercover police and Ministry of Interior agents, organized “acts of repudiation” in the form of mobs organized to assault and disperse those who assembled peacefully.”
  • “The government routinely denied citizens freedom of association and did not recognize independent associations. The law proscribes any political organization not officially recognized. A number of independent organizations, including opposition political parties and professional associations, operated as NGOs without legal recognition, and police sometimes raided their meetings.”
  • “The government routinely denied citizens freedom of association and did not recognize independent associations. The law proscribes any political organization not officially recognized. A number of independent organizations, including opposition political parties and professional associations, operated as NGOs without legal recognition, and police sometimes raided their meetings.”

Freedom of Movement (Section 2.D):

  • “There continued to be restrictions on freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, and migration with the right of return.”
  • “The government also barred citizens and persons of Cuban descent living abroad from entering the country, apparently on grounds that they were critical of the government or for having “abandoned” postings abroad.”

Protection of Refugees (Section 2.F): “Cuba is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention [Treaty].”

Freedom to Participate in the Political Process (Section 3):

  • “[C]itizens do not have the ability to form political parties or choose their government through the right to vote in free and fair elections or run as candidates from political parties other than the CCP. The government forcefully and consistently retaliated against those who sought peaceful political change.”
  • “The new constitution includes many sections that restrict citizens’ ability to participate fully in political processes by deeming the CCP as the state’s only legal political party and the ‘superior driving force of the society and the state.’”

Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government (Section 4): The government did not effectively enforce the law against corruption.

Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights (Section 5):

  • “The government subjected domestic human rights advocates to intimidation, harassment, periodic short-term detention, and long-term imprisonment on questionable charges.”
  • “The government refused to recognize or meet with any unauthorized NGOs that monitored or promoted human rights.”
  • “The government continued to deny international human rights organizations, including the United Nations, its affiliated organizations, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, access to prisoners and detainees.”

Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons (Section 6):

  • “The government specifically targeted activists organizing a campaign called Women United for Our Rights that asked the state to update data on crimes against women, train officials to handle crimes against women, and define gender-based violence in the law.”
  • “A large number of persons with disabilities who depended on the state for their basic needs struggled to survive due to lack of resources and inattention.”
  • “Afro-Cubans often suffered racial discrimination, and some were subject to racial epithets while undergoing beatings at the hands of security agents in response to political activity. Afro-Cubans also reported employment discrimination, particularly in positions of prominence within the tourism industry, media, and government.”
  • Although Cuba has “a history of state-sanctioned events in support of the LGBTI community,” several “unrecognized NGOs that promote LGBTI human rights faced government harassment, not for their promotion of such topics, but for their independence from official government institutions.”

Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining (Section 7.A): “The government continued to prevent the formation of independent trade unions in all sectors. use politically motivated and discriminatory dismissals against those who criticized the government’s economic or political model.”

Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor (Section 7.B): “Many citizens were employed by state-run entities contracted by foreign entities inside the country and abroad to provide labor, often highly skilled labor such as doctors or engineers. These employees received a small fraction of the salaries paid to the state-run company, often less than 10 percent. For example, in the “Mais Medicos” program run in cooperation with the Pan-American Health Organization in Brazil, of $1.3 billion the Brazilian government paid for the services of Cuban doctors, less than 1 percent–only $125 million–was paid to the doctors who provided the services. The rest went into the Cuban government’s coffers. Doctors in the program complained of being overworked and not earning enough to support their families. Former participants described coercion, nonpayment of wages, withholding of their passports, and restriction on their movement, which the government denied. Similar practices occurred in the tourism sector.”

Comments

The U.S.’ repeated allegation that Cuban medical personnel on foreign missions are engaged in illegal forced labor does not make it so. Moreover, there is a strong legal argument against that allegation.[3]

There may well be legitimate Cuban arguments against the other allegations mentioned above, which Cuba would need to assert and prove.

More importantly, the U.S. allegations ignore the long history of U.S. overt and covert hostile actions against the much smaller and militarily weaker island nation, and hence Cuba’s well-founded need to be suspicious of its domestic critics and to take some actions against those critics. This, however, does not provide Cuba with legitimate excuses for all of those actions.

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

[1] State Dep’t, Secretary Michael R. Pompeo on the Release of the 2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (Mar. 11, 2020); Jakes, Critics Hear Political Tone as Pompeo Calls Out Diplomatic Rivals Over Human Rights, N.Y. Times (Mar. 11, 2020).

[2] State Dep’t, 2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cuba (Mar. 11, 2020).

[3] See, e.g.,  these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: U.S. Unjustified Campaign To Discredit Cuba’s Foreign Medical Mission Program (Sept. 4, 2019); U.S. Litigation Over Cuba Medical Mission Program (Feb. 12, 2020); Cuba Response to U,S, Campaign Against Cuba’s Medical Missions (Feb. 13, 2020).

 

U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights Responds to Criticisms

On September 15, 2019, Dr. Peter Berkowitz, the Executive Director of the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, published responses to criticisms that have been leveled against the Commission.[1] Here are those responses followed by this blogger’s reactions to same.                                    

Dr. Berkowtiz’s Responses to Criticisms

“The announcement of the . . . [Commission’s} existence and mandate immediately triggered a barrage of skepticism, indignation, and anger. The misunderstandings that the criticisms embody underscore the urgency of the commission’s work.”

Characterization of the Criticisms

“The very idea of human rights has come under fire from the left and the right for its supposedly sham universality. Hard-core progressives contend that human rights are nothing more than a vehicle for advancing Western imperialism and colonialism. Single-minded conservatives maintain that the essential function of human rights is to erode national sovereignty and promulgate progressive political goals around the world.”

“More measured and compelling objections focus on the excesses to which the human rights project has been exposed. The proliferation of rights claims has obscured the distinction between fundamental rights that are universally applicable and partisan preferences that are properly left to diplomacy and political give-and-take. International institutions charged with monitoring and safeguarding human rights sometimes include in their membership countries that flagrantly violate human rights and which wield international law as a weapon to undermine them. The growth of international institutions, courts, and NGOs dedicated to human rights has created a cadre of bureaucrats, judges, scholars, and activists. Many of these experts and advocates are dedicated to the cause of human rights and serve with distinction, but all face the temptation — typical of any professional community — of succumbing to special interests and self-serving agendas. And an overemphasis on universal rights can distract from other essentials of political life, including the discharge of responsibilities, the cultivation of virtues, and the caring for community.”

U.S. Role in Evaluating These Criticisms

“It’s especially important for the United States to respond thoughtfully to the confusion and controversy swirling around human rights because of our country’s founding convictions. The Declaration of Independence affirms “certain unalienable Rights” — these include “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” — that inhere in all human beings. The Constitution establishes the institutional framework that enables Americans to secure these fundamental rights through democratic self-government.” (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, as a driving force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1948 — the United States reaffirmed the nation’s founding conviction that all human beings deserve the rights and liberties secured by its Constitution. At the same time, the Constitution leaves to the American people and their elected representatives the discretion to determine the role in the country’s foreign policy played by the universal rights that Americans and non-Americans share.” (Emphasis added.)

Evaluation of Criticisms

“Yet an array of scholars, pundits, former political officials, and organizations are up in arms about the commission. Their critiques are illuminating, though not entirely as they intended.”

“First, critics charge that the Trump administration’s record advancing human rights renders it unfit to establish a commission to provide advice on human rights. Set aside that the administration has engaged Kim Jong-un in pursuit of peaceful dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program; imposed tough sanctions on Vladimir Putin’s belligerent Russia; supported a democratic transition in Venezuela; opposed Iran’s quest to impose a brutal hegemony throughout the Middle East; and convened in Bahrain an international forum attended by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among others, to discuss the economic reconstruction of the West Bank and Gaza and peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Isn’t the State Department’s determination to improve understanding of the connections between America’s founding principles and the administration’s foreign policy a sign of the enduring significance it attaches to human rights?”

“Second, critics detect a sinister ambition in Secretary Pompeo’s “distinction between unalienable rights and ad hoc rights granted by governments.” They worry that authoritarian countries around the world will conclude that the guiding purpose of the Commission on Unalienable Rights is to redefine human rights narrowly. But the American constitutional tradition turns on the difference between universal rights that are essential and unchanging and the contingent rights created by the consent of the governed that serve as a means to protecting citizens’ fundamental freedoms, and which are bound to vary from country to country.” (Emphasis added.)

“Third, critics express dismay that the commission was charged with examining the reasoning by which claims about human rights are assessed, because they believe that the debate about the foundations and the meaning of human rights has all but ended. It has been asserted, for example, that codification of human rights by widely ratified international treaties (in many cases, though, not ratified by the United States) renders the commission’s work superfluous. This contention illustrates problems that gave rise to the panel. Contrary to the critics’ belief, a right does not become inalienable simply because an international treaty says so. And the refusal of the United States to ratify many such treaties demonstrates the persistence of questions about what counts as a human right and about the status of such rights in international law.” (Emphasis added.)

“Fourth, critics have warned that the commission intends to strip members of various groups and communities of their rights. In fact, the commission proceeds from the premise that all persons — regardless of faith, nationality, race, class, and gender — share essential rights grounded in our common humanity.” (Emphasis added.)

Fifth, critics accuse the commission of lacking intellectual and political diversity. In fact, the political diversity and variety of intellectual perspectives represented compares quite favorably with the uniform political and intellectual outlook that informs so many of those who have condemned the commission.

“In one respect, the quick-out-of-the-gate criticisms of the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights have been highly constructive. By throwing into sharp relief the passion and perplexity that surround the discussion of human rights, the critics themselves unwittingly make the case for sober and deliberate reflection about the roots of human rights in the American constitutional tradition, and their reach in the conduct of America’s foreign affairs. That is precisely the task that Secretary Pompeo has directed the Commission on Unalienable Right to undertake, and which its members have proudly embraced.” (Emphasis added.)

This Blogger’s Reactions

Some of the highlighted portions of Berkowitz’s comments correctly observe that some of the criticisms expressed concern that the Commission was designed to reduce the scope of international human rights in accord with the political views of the Trump Administration, but Berkowitz fails to acknowledge statements by Secretary Pompeo that prompted these criticisms.

Berkowitz also acknowledges, as he should, that the U.S. “Constitution establishes the institutional framework that enables Americans to secure these fundamental rights through democratic self-government.” But he fails to note that the U.S. Declaration of Independence itself states, ““to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” immediately following its proclamation, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (Emphasis added.)

In other words, the U.S. Declaration itself implicitly recognizes that it does not secure the rights it proclaims because it does not create binding legal obligations. Instead the Declaration contemplates that the not yet established U.S. government subsequently will enact statutes that protect the unalienable rights, only three of which are specifically mentioned in the Declaration while alluding to a larger category of unalienable rights. These subsequent statutes are not “ad hoc” and lesser rights as Secretary Pompeo likes to say. [2]

Similarly the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) from 1948, which the Commission, in other contexts, properly mentions in the same breath as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, does not create any binding legal obligations. Instead, the UDHR says, “every individual and every organ of society , keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive . . . by progressive measures, national and international, to secure [these rights and freedoms] universal and effective recognition and observance.” In other words, the UDHR itself contemplated that there should be additional measures, including national legislation and international treaties, to secure the rights and freedoms articulated in the UDHR. Again, these are not “ad hoc” and lesser rights.(Emphasis added.)

In addition, the Commission’s Chair Mary Ann Glendon, the author of a leading book about the creation of the UDHR, has said that one of the principles of the UDHR’s framers was “flexible universalism.” The UDHR framers “understood that there would always be different ways of applying human rights to different social and political contexts, and that each country’s circumstances would affect how it would fulfill its requirements.” For example, . . . [UDHR’s] Article 22 provides: ‘Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.’ (Emphasis added.) Another example is Article 14, which states, ‘Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution,’ but is silent on how that right should be protected. [3]

“Flexible universalism” also exists in human rights treaties that allow for their ratification by nation states with reservations for at least some of the treaty’s provisions. And, of course, a state may chose not to ratify a treaty and thereby not be bound by any of its provisions. Moreover, there are mechanisms for other states and international agencies to address these reservations and non-ratifications. For example, in the U.H. Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, the Council and other states may, and do, make recommendations for states to withdraw reservations or ratify certain treaties. But these are only recommendations.[4]

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

[1] Berkowitz, Criticisms Illustrate Need for State Dept. Human Rights Panel (Sept. 15, 2019). Dr. Berkowitz also serves this year on the Department’s Policy Planning Staff while on leave as Ted and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is the author of books and articles about constitutional government, conservatism, liberalism and progressivism, liberal education and Israel and the Middle East. He holds degrees from Swarthmore College (B.A.), Hebrew University of Jerusalem (M.A.), and Yale University (PhD and JD). (Com’n Unalienable Rights, Member Bios.) 

[2] E.g., Another Speech About Unalienable Rights by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, dwkcommentareies.com (Sept. 7, 2019); Criticism of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights, dwkcommentaries.com (July 20, 2019).

[3] Human Rights Commentaries by Mary Ann Glendon, Chair of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 2, 2019). 

[4] E.g., U.N.’s Human Rights Council’s Final Consideration of Cameroon’s Universal Periodic Review, dwkcommentaries/com (Sept. 20, 2018); U.S. Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dwkcommentareis.com. (Feb. 5, 2013) (U.S. ratification had five reservations, understandings, four declarations and a proviso).