Tag: Portugal

Roman Catholic Church Rejects Doctrine of Discovery

In the 15th century, the Roman Catholic Church issued several papal bulls announcing what became known as the doctrine of discovery that authorized various European powers to conquer the lands of non-Christians. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Dum Diversas, which authorized King Alfonzo of Portugal to “subjugate the Saracens and pagans and other unbelievers and enemies of Christ” and “reduce their persons to perpetual servitude” and “to take their belongings, including land,” and “to convert them to you, and your use, and your successors the Kings of Portugal.” In 1455 Pope Nicholas V issued Romanus Pontifex, which extended Portugal’s authority to conquer the lands of infidels and pagans for “the salvation of all’ in order to “pardon. . . their souls. This document also granted Portugal a specific right to conquest in West Africa and to trade with Saracens and infidels in designated areas.[1]

As discussed below, in March 2023 the Roman Catholic Church rejected this doctrine.

Church’s Rejection of the Doctrine[2]

The doctrine in more recent times has been subjected to criticism from indigenous peoples, and on March 30, 2023, the doctrine’s rejection came in a joint statement by two of the Vatican’s departments or dicasteries: the Dicasteries  for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development.

After confessing that “many Christians have committed evil acts against indigenous peoples for which recent Popes have asked forgiveness on numerous occasions,” the Joint Statement said, “In our own day, a rewed dialogue with indigenous peoples, especially with those who profess the Catholic Faith, has helped the Church to understand better their values and cultures. With their help, the Church has acquired a greater awareness of their sufferings, past and present, due to the expropriation of their lands, which they consider a sacred gift from God and their ancestors, as well as the policies of forced assimilation, promoted by the governmental authorities of the time, intended to eliminate their indigenous cultures. As Pope Francis has emphasized, their sufferings constitute a powerful summons to abandon the colonizing mentality and to walk with them side by side, in mutual respect and dialogue, recognizing the rights and cultural values  of all individuals and peoples. In this regard, the Church is committed to accompanying indigenous peoples and to foster efforts aimed at promoting reconciliation and healing.”

In these conversations with indigenous peoples, “the Church has heard the importance of [our] addressing the concept referred to as the ‘doctrine of discovery.’ The legal concept of ‘discovery’ was debated by colonial powers from the sixteenth century onward and found particular expression in the nineteenth century jurisprudence of courts in several countries, according to which the discovery of lands by settlers granted an exclusive right to extinguish, either by purchase or conquest, the title to or possession of those lands by indigenous peoples.

The Joint Statement then said, “The ‘doctrine of discovery’ is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Historical research clearly demonstrates that the papal documents in question, written in a specific historical period and linked to political questions, have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith. At the same time, the Church acknowledges that these papal bulls did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of indigenous peoples. The Church is also aware that the content of these documents were manipulated for political purposes by competing colonial powers in order to justify immoral acts against indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesiastical authorities. It is only just to recognize these errors, acknowledge the terrible effects of the assimilation policies and the pain experienced by indigenous peoples, and ask for pardon. Further, Pope Francis has urged: “Never again can the Christian community  allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others.” (Emphasis added.)

In no uncertain terms, the Church’s magisterium upholds the respect due to every human being. The Catholic Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery.’” (Emphasis added.)

 Reactions to the Rejection[3]

 This papal action was applauded the same day by the Roman Catholic Bishops for the U.S. and Canada.

 U.S. Bishops

The U.S. Bishops said, “The Joint Statement is yet another step in expressing concern and pastoral solicitude for Native and Indigenous peoples who have experienced tremendous suffering because of the legacy of a colonizing mentality. We welcome the statement’s renewed repudiation and condemnation of the violence and injustices committed against Native and indigenous peoples, as well as the Church’s ongoing support for their dignity and human rights.”

The U.S. Bishops also expressed ‘deep sorrow and regret” for the “times when Christians, including ecclesiastical authorities, failed to oppose destructive and immoral actions of the competing colonial powers.” In recent dialogues, “Tribal leaders have illuminated more aspects of this painful history, and, with humility, we wish to offer our continuing solidarity  and support, as well as a further willingness to listen and learn. We will continue to support policies that protect the poor and vulnerable, and that will offer relief to Native and indigenous families who are struggling.”

The U.S. Bishops also noted that “the centuries of history are complex, and the term ‘doctrine of discovery’ has taken on various legal and political interpretations that merit further historical study and understanding.”

Canadian Bishops

 After endorsing the Vatican’s Joint Statement, the Canadian Bishops noted that “numerous and repeated statements by the Church and the Popes over the centuries have upheld the rights and freedoms  of Indigienous Peoples” and that “Popes in recent times have also sought forgiveness on numerous occasions for evil acts committed against Indigenous Peoples by Christians.” The Canadians also reported that that the Canadian and U.S. Bishops and the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences are exploring the possibility of organizing an academic symposium with Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars to further deepen historical understanding about the “Doctrine of Discovery.”

The Canadians closed with the following July 2022 quotation from Pope Francis in Quebec City: “ [N]ever again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others.”

 U.N. Special Rapporteur on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

 The U.N. Special Rapporteur, JośeFrancisco Cali Tzay, acknowledged that the doctrine of discovery “was a theory that served to justify the expropriation by sovereign colonizers of indigenous land from their rightful owners” and “is still an open wound for many Indigenous Peoples around the world.” Therefore, this doctrine ‘must be addressed as part of a reconciliation process between Indigenous Peoples and colonial States.” Therefore, Tzay welcomed the Vatican’s rejection of the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ and hoped that other governments would follow its lead.

 Conclusion

In the 19th century the doctrine of discovery was incorporated into U.S. law by the U.S. Supreme Court, a topic for exploration in a subsequent post.[4]

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

[1] Papal bulls, Wikipedia; Discovery doctrine, Wikipedia.

[2] Joint Statement of the Dicasteries for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development on the “Doctrine of Discovery,” Bollettino Pubblico (Mar. 30, 2023); Povoledo, Vatican Repudiates ‘Doctrine of Discovery,’ Used as Justification for Colonization, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2023); Cardinal Tolendtino, Statement on “Doctrine of Discovery,” a sign of reconciliation, Vatican News (Mar. 30, 3023); U.S. and Canadian Bishops welcome Vatican Statement on Doctrine of Discovery, Vatican News (Mar. 30, 2023); Church defends indigenous peoples: “Doctrine of Discovery’ was never Catholic, Vatican News (Mar. 30, 2023).

[3] USCCB, Statement on “Doctrine of Discovery,” (Mar. 30, 2023); CCCB, Statement by the Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Joint Statement of the Dicastery for Culture and Education and the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development on the “Doctrine of Discovery,” CCB (Mar. 30, 2023):Lubov, UN rights expert hails Vatican’s rejection of ‘Doctrine of Discovery,’ Vatican News (Mar. 30, 2023);

[4] E.g., Doctrine of discovery, Legal Infor,. Institute (April 2022); /Johnson v. M’Intosh, Wikipedia.

European and Other Countries’ Reactions to New U.S. Anti-Cuban Policies

Strong objections to the  new U.S. policies regarding Cuba have been registered by Europe and Canada, both major investors in, and having significant business with, Cuba. Russia also objects for more strategic reasons.

Europe and Canada[1]

The EU is the largest foreign investor in Cuba and the latter’s top export market. In December 2016, the EU and Cuba concluded a new framework for boosting economic and trade links that were encouraged by the Obama administration’s efforts to reset relations with Havana. Some European companies, including Spanish hotel chain Meliá Hotels International SA, recently have announced fresh investments there.

Immediately after the U.S. announcement of the activation of Title IIII of the Helms-Burton Act, the EU  by its High Representative/Vice President Federica Mogherini and its Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström) issued this joint statement: “In the light of the United States Administration’s decision to not renew the waiver related to Title III of the 1996 Helms-Burton (LIBERTAD) Act, the European Union reiterates its strong opposition to the extraterritorial application of unilateral Cuba-related measures that are contrary to international law. This decision is also a breach of the United States’ commitments undertaken in the EU-US agreements of 1997 and 1998, which have been respected by both sides without interruption since then. In those agreements, the US committed to waive Title III of the Helms-Burton Act and the EU, inter alia, suspended its case in the World Trade Organization against the US.”

This EU statement added, “The EU will consider all options at its disposal to protect its legitimate interests, including in relation to its WTO rights and through the use of the EU Blocking Statute. [This EU Statute] prohibits the enforcement of US courts judgements relating to Title III of the Helms-Burton Act within the EU, and allows EU companies sued in the US to recover any damage through legal proceedings against US claimants before EU courts.”

Canada, whose companies are other major investors in, and conductors of business with, Cuba, also issued an immediate rejection of this U.S. change of policy. Its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, stated, “Canada is deeply disappointed with today’s announcement. We will be reviewing all options in response to this U.S. decision.” She added the following:

  • “Since the U.S. announced in January it would review Title III, the Government of Canada has been regularly engaged with the U.S. government to raise our concerns about the possible negative consequences for Canadians—concerns that are long-standing and well known to our U.S. partners.”
  • “I have met with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to register those concerns. Canadian and U.S. officials have had detailed discussions on the Helms-Burton Act and Canada’s Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act. I have also discussed this issue with the EU.”
  • Finally, “I have been in contact with Canadian businesses to reaffirm we will fully defend the interests of Canadians conducting legitimate trade and investment with Cuba.”

According to EU Ambassador to the U.S., Alberto Navarro, there is “enormous worry” by European businesses.  “There are business people who’ve been . . .[in Cuba] 20, 30 years, who’ve made bets on investing their financial resources in Cuba to stimulate commerce, tourism, international exchange, and many of them tell me that they haven’t lived through a similar situation.” He also said, “”any country can adopt whatever legislation it wants, and apply the law within its own country, we can criticize whether we like it or not. What that country cannot do is impose its legislation on others. We are the front line of defense in Cuba, and obviously have legitimate interests in Cuba and we want to defend them and protect our citizens and our investors.”

The EU and Canada also issued a joint statement that said the U.S. decision would have “an important impact on legitimate EU and Canadian economic operators in Cuba” and that they would seek to use the WTO dispute-resolution framework to protect their companies. This U.S. decision was “regrettable” and an “extraterritorial application of unilateral Cuba-related measures contrary to international law.” It “can only lead to an unnecessary spiral of legal actions.”

The EU and Canada already have so-called blocking statutes against some U.S. sanctions on Cuba, which bans the enforcement of U.S. court judgments against EU and Canadian firms and allows counterclaims to be filed against U.S. firms bringing legal action. However, these blocking statute have rarely been used.

A former Canadian ambassador to Cuba, Mark Entwistle, got it right when he opined that the origins of these new U.S. policies “lie partly in the historic dynamics of American presidential politics and partly in an obsession in some circles about a mythical existential threat posed by the developing Caribbean island nation.”

Moreover, according to Entwistle, the activation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act “seeks to impose American domestic law on other countries” or attempts “to off-load responsibility to third parties and internationalize what is and should be a bilateral issue between the United States and Cuba.” This is extraterritoriality that “ violates basic sovereignty,”  supposedly highly valued by Trump. This recent Trump decision, however, fits with his scepticism of, if not outright hostility towards,  rules-based multilateral systems.

These sentiments were echoed by EU member, France, whose Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said Europe would respond to any sanctions by the U.S. on investments in Cuba. “If the American administration decided to also impose a regime of sanctions on investments in Cuba, in contravention of what has been decided for several years now by our American allies, we would react. Europe would also react and is ready to also impose sanctions at our end.”

In Spain, another EU member which has large investments in hotels and other tourism-related ventures on the island, a senior government official said its government  promised that it will ‘absolutely support’ Spanish companies established on the island in the face of the U.S. new policies and that it understands that “the EU will support, together with Spain, those companies that have their commercial activities, legitimate and well organized in Cuba and in other countries.”

Another EU member, Portugal, joined the choir by saying that it “regrets the US decision to authorize the filing of legal actions in its territory [under] . . .Title III of the Helms Burton Law against certain foreign companies operating in Cuba, ” This U.S. decision “reinforces the commercial tension between the [EU] . . .and the United States.”

The United Kingdom’s Foreign Office joined in these objections. It stated, “The extraterritorial application of … sanctions, which we consider to be illegal under international law, threaten to harm UK and EU companies doing legitimate business in Cuba by exposing them to liability in U.S. courts. We will work alongside the EU to protect the interests of our companies.”

Also critical was Ivan Briscoe, the Latin American director for the International Crisis Group, an independent Belgium-based organization “working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world” and to sound “the alarm to prevent deadly conflict.” He said, John Bolton’s “honoring one of U.S.’ greatest military fiascos from 60 years back [the Bay of Pigs invasion] suggests U.S. policy to Latin America owes more now to a perverse Cold War nostalgia than practical benefits for people of the region.”

Mexico added its objections to the new U.S. measures. It said that it “lamented” the U.S. decision that the government will work to protect Mexican companies that have business interests in Cuba.

Russia[2]

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov considers the new U.S. sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela to be illegal and it plans to do everything to support its allies in these two countries. “Venezuela and Cuba are our allies and strategic partners. We join the voices of those who condemn US impositions on Latin America or any other region of the world.”

A spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zajárova, added that Moscow “is against any unilateral sanction.”

Conclusion

This blog supports the objections from the EU and its members, including the United Kingdom (still a member), Canada and Mexico. Also deserving special commendation is Ivan Brisco’s rejecting John Bolton’s statement:“honoring one of U.S.’ greatest military fiascos from 60 years back [the Bay of Pigs invasion as suggesting that] U.S. policy to Latin America owes more now to a perverse Cold War nostalgia than practical benefits for people of the region.”

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

[1] EU, Joint Statement by High Representative/Vice President Federica Mogherini and Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström on the decision of the United States to further activate Title III of the Helms-Burton (Libertad) Act (April 17, 2019) (his EU Joint Statement was issued shortly after the EU’s Press Release, EU, Latin America and Caribbean: Partnering for prosperity, democracy, resilience and global governance (April 17, 2019)); Assoc. Press, EU Ambassador: Trump Cuba Policy Worries European Companies. N.Y. Times (April 24, 2019); Global Affairs Canada, Government of Canada will defend interests of Canadians doing business in Cuba  (April 17, 2019); Entwistle, The Trump Administration’s new Cuba restrictions are harmful and belligerent, Toronto Globe & Mail (April 19, 2019); Anchfield, Canada pushes back against U.S. move to allow lawsuits against foreign firms in Cuba, Toronto Globe & Mail (April 27, 3029); Norman & McBride, EU, Canada Vow to Fight New U.S. Sanctions on Cuba,  W.S.J. (April 17, 2019); The European Union could prohibit the application of Judgments of US courts against their companies, Diario de Cuba (April 17, 2019); Reuters, Europe Would Respond to Any U.S. Sanctions on Investments in Cuba: French Minister, N.Y. Times (April 18, 2019); Madrid promises to ‘defend” the interests of Spanish companies in Cuba, Diario de Cuba (April 17, 2019); Parra, Spain wants EU to challenge US policy in Cuba, Wash. Post (April 17, 2019); Portugal: Application of Helms-Burton reinforces commercial tension between the European Union and the US, Cubadabate (April 20, 2019); Reuters, UK Condemns U.S. Application of Cuba Sanctions to Foreign Companies, N.Y. Times (April 18, 2019); Reactions: Canada and Mexico promise to protect their companies in Cuba,  Diario de Cuba (April 18, 2019); Reuters, Trump’s Cuba Hawks Try to Squeeze Havana Over Venezuela Role, N.Y. Times (April 18, 2019); Gómez, What antidotes are there against Helms-Burton?, Cubadebate (April 25, 2019) (details about these laws against Helms-Burton Act: 1996 EU Statute of Blockade, the 1996 Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, the 1996 Mexico Law on Protection of Trade and Investment of Foreign Standards that Contravene International Law and the 1996 Cuba Law of Reaffirmation of Cuban Dignity and Sovereignty (Law 80)).

[2] Reuters, Russia Says It Will Help Venezuela, Cuba to Weather U.S. Sanctions: RIA, N.Y. Times (April 18, 2019); Assoc. Press, Putin Envoy in Caracas Rejects US Revival of Monroe Doctrine, N.Y. Times (April 18, 2019).

 

Cameroon’s Human Rights Record Being Subjected to Universal Periodic Review by U.N. Human Rights Council: The Pre-Hearing Papers               

This year Cameroon’s human rights record is a subject of its third  Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. A prior post reviewed the nature of the UPR process. Now we look at the pre-hearing papers for this UPR while future posts will cover the May 16 UPR hearing and then the results of the UPR.

Cameroon’s Third UPR Pre-Hearing Papers

 Prior to the May 16, 2018, hearing on Cameroon’s UPR, the following materials have been translated from their original language into five other languages and made available on the Council’s website: (a) Cameroon’s National Report to the Council; (b) the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Compilation of U.N. Information on Cameroon; and (c) the Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review’s Summary of Stakeholders’ submissions on Cameroon.

Cameroon’s National Report[1]

In the section “Implementation of recommendations from previous cycles,” it discussed ratification of various international human rights instruments, including the following: (a) persons charged with the crime of genocide under the Code of Military Justice “shall be tried by the military courts;” (b) the instruments for the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the [Torture convention] are being deposited; (c) the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance has been signed and is in process of ratification.

Paragraph 66 states, “the 2016/17 school year has been subject to some disruptions in the North-West and South-West regions occasioned by the actions taken by a number of trade unions, including teachers’ unions.” (Emphasis added.)

Paragraph 98 states, “Efforts to ensure access to justice have included the continuation of mobile court hearings in areas where there are no established courts to speak of.” (Emphasis added.)

Paragraph 112, it stated, “The realization of human rights in Cameroon is a work in progress, as security and economic constraints still limit their enforcement in certain areas. . . . In October 2017, there were around 236,000 internally displaced persons and 332,000 refugees scattered throughout the East, Adamaoua and Far North Regions of Cameroon. (Emphasis added.)

Paragraph 113 stated, “The social crisis in the North-West and South-West Regions, which was triggered in late 2016 by the mobilization of a number of teachers’ and lawyers’ unions, has also interfered with the enforcement of certain human rights.” (Emphasis added.)

Paragraph 115 states, “Dialogue, the obligation to preserve the integrity of the national territory, its people and their property, as well as to promote conciliation, have shaped the response to the aforementioned social crisis. If the crisis is to be resolved, all persons must show good will in working to live together more harmoniously. To this end, in addition to the steps taken to address the demands made by these unions, the institutional framework has been enhanced by the establishment of the National Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism (annex 16).” (Emphasis added.)

Paragraph 116 states, “increased support in the fight against terrorism and a more equal sharing of the burden of caring for refugees and managing internally displaced populations are being requested, as is increased support for national efforts to consolidate social harmony.” (Emphases added.)

U.N. Information about Cameroon[2]

This report summarized comments about Cameroon from various U.N. agencies, including the following comments relating to the Francophone-Anglophone disputes:

  • “In November 2017, several special procedure mandate holders warned the Government of Cameroon to engage with representatives of the anglophone population in a meaningful political dialogue and halt renewed violence in the south-west and north-west, where the country’s anglophone minority was reportedly suffering worsening human rights violations. They urged the Government to adopt all necessary measures consistent with Cameroon’s human rights obligations to end the cycle of violence. Up to 17 people had reportedly been killed and dozens wounded and arrested in demonstrations in the country’s anglophone regions since 1 October 2017. The special procedure mandate holders were disturbed by reports of a series of measures taken by the national authorities, including curfews, a ban on public meetings, and other restrictions aimed at preventing peaceful protests. Excessive use of force by the security services, injuries, mass arrests, arbitrary detentions, torture and other ill-treatment had been reported.” (Para. 22; emphasis added.)
  • “The special procedure mandate holders asked the Government to take effective measures to prosecute and sanction all those responsible for such violations. The appeal for . . . action came nearly a year after other United Nations human rights experts publicly urged the Government to halt violence against the anglophone minority, following reports that anglophone protesters in Buea and Bamenda had suffered undue force. The special procedure mandate holders also denounced any use of violence against members of the security forces, after reports that several had been killed. Since December 2016, the special procedure mandate holders have repeatedly raised concerns directly with the Government of Cameroon, and continue to monitor and seek clarification of the alleged human rights violations in the north-west and south-west of the country.” (Para. 23; emphases added.)
  • “The Human Rights Committee raised its concern at the alleged existence of secret detention facilities that were not subject to oversight of any kind.” (Para. 26.)
  • “The Committee against Torture recommended that Cameroon put an end to the practice of incommunicado detention and ensure that no one is detained in secret or unauthorized places, including unlisted military detention centers. Cameroon should investigate the existence of such places and detainees should be released or transferred to official places of detention.” (Para. 27.)
  • “The Committee against Torture stressed that the State should ensure that all allegations of excessive use of force, extrajudicial executions, ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest by State officials during or after the demonstrations in the anglophone region are the subject of an impartial investigation, that those responsible are prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished, and that victims obtain redress.” (Para. 28; emphasis added.)
  • “The Committee against Torture requested Cameroon to put in place, as soon as possible, a programme to protect witnesses and victims of torture. (Para. 29; emphasis added.)
  • “The Human Rights Committee urged Cameroon to lift any unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of assembly and the freedom to demonstrate, in particular for members of the country’s English-speaking minority.” (Para. 33; emphasis added.)
  • “UNESCO noted that Cameroon had suspended Internet services in the country’s Northwest and Southwest regions after a series of protests that had resulted in violence and the arrest of community leaders.” (Para. 37; emphasis added.)

Stakeholders’ Submissions[3]

Sharp criticisms of Cameroon from various groups were registered in 54 paragraphs. The following focused on human rights violations against Cameroonian Anglophones.

“Southern Cameroons Public Affairs Committee indicated that the Anglophone minority suffered a policy of ongoing discrimination, including the prohibition of the use of their language in daily public life. It further noted that discrimination has been used in various sectors including education, employment and access to justice. It recommended ending discrimination and the harassment of Anglophones and adopting an antidiscrimination legislation and policy.” (Para. 10; emphasis added.)

“Plateforme EPU noted the adverse consequences that the crisis in the Englishspeaking parts of the country has had on the economy, in particular because of the shutdown of Internet access for several months.” Para. 15; emphasis added.)

“JS2 noted that the anti-terrorism legislation allowed for Cameroonian to be charged in military courts and to face death penalty if their sponsored terrorism, which contravenes the right to a fair trial. JS2 was concerned by the lack of impartiality and independence of the military courts as well as the vague definition of terrorism. It recommended revising the anti-terrorism bill in accordance with international human rights obligations.  Amnesty International raised similar concerns and urged Cameroon to provide a definition of terrorism in line with international human rights standards and to limit the use of the military courts.” (Para. 18; emphasis added.)

“JS4 expressed concern about the increase in the number of death sentences being handed down by Cameroonian courts, especially in the northern part of the country.JS4 criticized the vague, general laws on terrorism, which are used as grounds for arresting defenders of the rights of the English-speaking minority.JS4 noted that persons on death row in Cameroon are denied their rights and are subjected to inhuman treatment and torture. JS4 recommended that Cameroon should take all necessary steps to amend the counter-terrorism law of 2014 and the Penal Code of 2016 to eliminate the death penalty. JS4 also recommended that the authorities should ensure that the rights of persons sentenced to death are respected, in particular by ensuring that proceedings are conducted transparently and that defendants are assisted by counsel.” (Para. 19; emphasis added.)

“The Southern Cameroons Public Affairs Committee reported that security forces have been using excessive force toward citizens, including torture and harass, and arbitrary arrested and detained incommunicado for prolonged periods without trial. It recommended ending all use of arbitrary arrest and detention of citizens, and use of torture or other cruel treatment.  It further urged that Cameroon investigate into allegations, and prosecute those responsible for the violence against Anglophones.” (Para. 20; emphases added.)

“JS2 noted that many persons were arbitrary arrested and held in horrific conditions following the riots in the English-speaking regions of country. JS2 urged Cameroon to work with the judicial system to ensure detention periods are not excessive, subject the conduct of arrests to strict conditions and to ensure that national criminal legislation on arrest is compatible with international human rights standards.” (Para. 23; emphasis added.)

“Plateforme EPU pointed out that some individuals are still being held illegally in prisons in the wake of the crisis in the English-speaking parts of the country.” (Para. 24; emphasis added.)

“SCAPAC indicated that English language was excluded in courts and that Anglophones have been deprived of access to justice and an effective justice remedy. SCAPAC further noted that many Anglophone detainees are not informed of the charged for which they were accused. (Para. 26; emphases added.)

“JS7 noted that in 2017, the government ordered the suspension of internet services in the Northwest and Southwest Anglophone regions of Cameroon, following the protest against the dominance of French language in Cameroon. It recommended that Cameroon refrain from shutting down internet communication, take actions to adopt a law on access to information and further implement legal safeguards to prevent unlawful surveillance.” (Para. 28; emphasis added.)

“JS2 and JS5 noted that Cameroon continues to show high levels of intolerance towards human rights defenders who are critical of the government, especially in the context of the Anglophone crisis.” (Para. 31; emphasis added.)

“Amnesty International noted that Cameroon have continued to restrict the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, in particular during the protests in the Anglophone regions.” (Para. 32; emphasis added.)

“The Committee to protect journalist (CPJ) regretted that criminal defamation legislation against journalist continues to exist in Cameroon. CPJ noted that Cameroon is using the anti-terror law to prosecute journalist in military court, in particular since the unrest in English-speaking regions. It was concerned by the overly broad provisions of the law and the potential abuse of political opponents and the right to freedom of expression.” (Para. 33; emphasis added.)

“SCAPAC noted that Cameroon has taken measures to exclude Anglophones from participation in government and employment in the public services and to shut down the internet in the South in violation to the right to free speech and access to information. It recommended to release journalists and to ensure a favorable climate for the activities of human rights defender. The Law Society of England and Wales found it regrettable that the anti-terrorism law is used to bring proceeding against human rights defenders. It recommended that Cameroon should respect the rights to freedom of association and assembly and provide human rights defenders the protection required to carry out their functions. Plateforme EPU made the same observations on the counter-terrorism law and expressed concern about the law’s adverse effects on freedom of expression.” (Para. 35; emphasis added.)

“CPJ also noted that Cameroon led an internet shutdown in the English-speaking regions and suspended broadcast permission for several Medias. It recommended Cameroon to ensure an environment conducive to press freedom by revising the antiterrorism law and decriminalizing defamation. It further recommended that Cameroon ensure that arrests and detention comply with international human rights law and to maintain internet access across the entire country.” (Para. 36; emphasis added.)

“In the context of the government’s response to the Anglophone crisis, Front Line Defenders reported the deteriorating environment for the activities of human rights defenders in Cameroon. It also noted that human rights defenders were victims of threats, intimidation, smear campaigns and physical attacks.87It regretted the adoption of the antiterrorism law, which further increase the chance for human rights activist to be charged in military courts and to face the death penalty. It also noted the continued violation of freedom of assembly. Front Line Defenders urged Cameroon to review and amend the 2014 anti-terrorism law to ensure that its provisions are not used to restrict freedom of expression or association and to take actions to put an end to the arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights defenders. It further recommended that Cameroon guarantee the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and a safe environment for human rights defenders by ending the harassment against human rights defenders and bringing perpetrators to justice. Plateforme EPU made the same observations concerning infringements of freedom of expression and of the rights of human rights defenders.” (Para. 37; emphases added.)

“The Southern Cameroons Public Affairs Committee further indicated that Anglophones have been marginalized and assimilated in the sphere of education. It recommended to protect linguistic heritage of the Anglophones and ensure that education is adapted to their cultural heritage.” (Para. 44; emphasis added.)

Advance Questions for Cameroon[4]

 The following advance questions were submitted by other Council members:

Member Questions
Belgium 1.Does Cameroon plan to sign and ratify the UN human rights conventions to which it is not yet party?

2.Does the Cameroonian Government plan to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the APIC or align its national legislation with the Rome Statute?

3.In the previous UPR, Belgium recommended that Cameroon investigate cases of police violence against persons because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. What measures has the Cameroon authorities taken in this regard?

4. How does the Cameroonian government guarantee freedom of expression on the Internet in all parts of the country?

5. Does the Cameroonian government intend to continue the de facto moratorium on the execution of the death penalty, including the application of the anti-terrorism law?

6. What measures is the Government of Cameroon taking to put an end to the escalation of violence, arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment of State agents in the English-speaking areas of the country, and to ensure that after an independent investigation and impartial, those responsible are prosecuted and victims get redress? (Emphasis added.)
Brazil 1.The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has expressed concern about the persistence of gender-based violence. What efforts is Cameroon planning to make to address this situation and improve the socio-cultural status of women?

2.What measures is Cameroon taking to protect children from sexual exploitation, violence, and early or forced marriages?
Germany 1.In the past, repeated allegations for violating human rights have been made against the security forces of Cameroon. How does the government ensure that human rights standards are met by the police and the military? (Emphasis added.)

2.What position does the Cameroonian government have towards international criminal law? Will there be any steps to ratify the Rome Statute in the near future?

3.The humanitarian situation in Cameroonian prisons has worsened in recent years due to progressive overcrowding. What measures is the Cameroonian government planning to improve in the short and medium term?
Liechtenstein 1.What steps has Cameroon taken to ratify the Rome Statute in its 2010 version?

2.What steps has Cameroon taken to join the Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, as elaborated by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group (ACT)?
Portugal 1.Does Cameroon plan to sign and ratify the UN human rights conventions to which it is not yet party?

2.Has the State under review established a “national mechanism for implementation, reporting and follow-up” covering UPR recommendations, but also recommendations / observations made by the Treaty Organs? Human Rights, Special Procedures and relevant regional mechanisms? If so, could the State under review briefly share its experience in establishing such a mechanism, including difficulties encountered and lessons learned, as well as plans or needs for strengthening the mechanism in the future?
Slovenia 1.With regard to our recommendation from the 2nd cycle of the UPR on the elimination of female genital mutilation, we would like to request information on the efforts taken by the government in this regard.

2.When will the government establish the minimum age for marriage as 18 for both girls and boys?
United Kingdom

of G.B. & N. I

 1.What steps has the government of Cameroon taken to complete an investigation into security forces’ handling of peaceful student protest at the University of Buea on 29 November 2016, to hold to account those responsible and to support victims?  (Emphasis added.)

2.What steps will the government of Cameroon take to address human trafficking, particularly of young women, for forced labor and sexual exploitation?

3.What steps is the government of Cameroon taking to ensure fair trials for Anglophone detainees and separatist leaders extradited from Nigeria who have been held incommunicado since January this year?  (Emphasis added.)

4.What steps is the government taking to promote freedom of expression, including improving access to information and ensuring a free media.

Conclusion

This blogger’s Cameroonian friends have emphasized that their Francophone brothers and sisters constitute roughly two-thirds of the population and control the central government; that Francophone teachers who do not know the English language are being sent into schools in the Anglophone areas of the country and forcing students to take examinations in the French language which they do not know; that Francophone judges who do not know the English language and the laws of the Anglophone areas are also being sent into these areas and deciding cases under French-language laws; and that the central government’s military forces are being sent into Anglophone areas and destroying villages and crops, thereby forcing those individuals to flee into nearby cities.

As a result, this post has emphasized the allegations of human rights violations being suffered by the Anglophones.

Future posts will examine the hearing and the final report.

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

[1] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, National report: Cameroon (Mar. 5, 2018) https://documents-dds-

[2] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Compilation on Cameroon: Report of the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (Mar. 12, 2018).

[3] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Summary of Stakeholders’ submissions on Cameroon (Feb. 28, 2018).

[4] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Advance Questions to Cameroon (First Batch); U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Advance Questions to Cameroon (Second Batch).

 

Advance Questions for Cuba in Its Universal Periodic Review by the U.N. Human Rights Council

As summarized in a previous post, Cuba’s human rights record is now undergoing its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. That post also discussed Cuba’s national report, submissions by stakeholders (NGO’s and others), a summary of U.N. information about Cuba and information about a pre-session hearing. Now we look at the questions submitted to Cuba in advance of the Council’s hearing on May 16 and an unusual criticism of Cuba by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights along with additional background information about the Council and the UPR.

Advance Questions for Cuba[1]

 The following advance questions were submitted by other Council members:

Member Questions
Belgium 1. When does the Cuban government plan to ratify human rights conventions to which it is not yet party?

2. Does Cuba plan to extend an open invitation to the special procedures of the Human Rights Council?

3. Will Cuba respond favorably to requests for visits by the Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights Defenders and Freedom of Expression, which have been pending since 2015 and 2016?

4. Does Cuba now guarantee access to independent lawyers to all persons deprived of their liberty?

5. What concrete actions has Cuba taken to release persons deprived of their liberty for political reasons.?
Brazil 1.How does Cuba guarantee the rights of the LGBTI?

2.How does Cuba ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary?
Germany 1.Does Cuba plan to ratify the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?

2.What will Cuba do to enable independent journalism?

3.Identify blogs and websites currently blocked and the reasons for same.

4.Will Cuba abolish travel restrictions for persons on parole or for those in certain professions, including the medical sector?

5.Will Cuba establish an independent national human rights institution?
Liechtenstein 1.Will Cuba ratify the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court in its 2010 version?

2.Will Cuba join the Code of Conduct for U.N. Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes?
Malta 1.What steps has Cuba taken to increase the effectiveness of control by the people of the activities of States bodies, elected representatives and civil servants.?
Portugal 1.How does Cuba coordinate the implementation of UPR recommendations that it accepts?

2.How does Cuba coordinate the implementation of recommendations/observations by U.N. human-rights Treaty bodies and Special Procedures and by regional mechanisms?
Slovenia 1.Provide more information on how non-governmental organizations operate in Cuba and details on any consultation process with them.
Spain 1. Is Cuba reforming its Law on Associations and the Electoral Law to promote a higher level of inclusion and social participation?

2. Which multilateral instruments on Human Rights does Cuba plan to sign and/or ratify?
Sweden 1.Provide more information on Cuba’s prevention of trafficking in persons.

2.Provide more information on Cuba’s effort to improve internet access.

3.Has Cuba denied exit visas for human rights defenders and ndependent civil society members?

4.How will Cuba secure free and unrestricted travel for all of its citizens?
Switzerland 1.What did Cuba do to guarantee free and open participation of all citizens in its last election?

2.How many Cuban citizens were candidates in the election “without being a member of an officially recognized Cuban institution [e.g. Communist Party]?

3.Is Cuba broadening the list of legal private businesses (cuentapropistas)? Is Cuba reviewing the definition of cuentapropistas to include self-declared human rights organizations, independent journalists and bloggers and community-based organizations?

4.Will Cuba amend its constitution to eliminate the subordination of the Supreme court to the National Assembly and to the Council of Ministers?

5.How is the Cuban Criminal Code’s concept of “pre-criminal social dangerousness” interpreted?

6.How do families have transparent and open information about a family member who is a temporarily detained as an alleged criminal?
United Kingdom 1.Will Cuba allow the development of independent political parties, including their legal registration and participation in future elections?

2.How does Cuba ensure that all Cubans are able to participate fully in political and electoral processes?

3.Will Cuba end laws and policies that apparently give primacy to the principle of national unity?

4.Will Cuba move towards international independent verification of the condition of its prisons and detention facilities?

5.Will Cuba bring its laws into compliance with international human rights standards on freedom of expression, association and assembly?
U.S.A. 1. Will Cuba ensure that members of the political opposition, including independent candidates, can participate freely and without threats?

2. When will Cuba allow members of Ladies in White and all other citizens to exercise their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, religion and association?

3. How does Cuba ensure that those responsible for violations and abuses of human rights and labor rights (including members of the police, military and security services) are investigated and held responsible?

4. Will Cuba respect the rights of peaceful assembly and freedoms of assembly, expression and association of members of the Independent Union Association of Cuba and all other workers and representatives?

5. How is Cuba promoting access to information and access to an Internet that is open, interoperable, reliable,  secure and affordable to its citizens?

 

U.N. High Commissioner’s Criticism of Cuba[2]

At a May 11 press briefing, a spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights released statements of concerns about human rights in Cuba and four other countries. Here is what was said about Cuba:

“There are deeply worrying reports that officials in Cuba have prevented a number of human rights defenders and civil society representatives from boarding flights to travel to meetings abroad on the pretext of requiring more detailed identity checks. These measures have resulted in passengers missing their flights and therefore the meetings, which in some cases were organised by a UN entity.”

“So far this year, the UN Human Rights Office has received direct information relating to 14 cases of Cubans being told by officials that the computer system required extra screening. We are also aware of reports that dozens of other people may have been stopped in this way from travelling, allegedly with no explanation by the Cuban authorities as to why they were held up nor on whose orders”

“These cases suggest that these additional checks are being used deliberately as a form of intimidation, pressure and harassment against certain individuals. Civil society organizations have also told us that they were informed verbally by the authorities that their representatives would not be allowed to leave the island before June.”

“We have previously expressed our concern at the harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders in Cuba, including the arbitrary arrest and short-term detention of individuals, particularly before, during and just after demonstrations. “

“We call on the Cuban authorities to respect everyone’s right to freedom of expression and to freedom of movement, and to ensure that human rights defenders and civil society representatives are not unjustifiably prevented from travelling, including those planning to attend UN meetings, in particular the Universal Periodic Review of Cuba on 16 May in Geneva.”

“Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, ‘everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”’Article 19 of the Universal Declaration states that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’”

“The UN Secretary-General presents an annual report to the Human Rights Council on intimidation and reprisals, and in October 2016 the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Andrew Gilmour, was designated to lead the monitoring and response to reprisals for cooperation or intimidation, including that which aims to discourage or prevent future co-operation with the UN system. Cuba was among the countries named in the last two reports.”

“The UN Human Rights Office will continue to monitor such cases to ascertain whether they merit inclusion in the next report.”

U.N. Human Rights Council Membership[3]

The Council is made of 47 U.N. Member States, which are elected by the majority of members of the U.N. General Assembly through direct and secret ballot. The General Assembly takes into account the candidate States’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as their voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard.

The Council’s Members serve for a period of three years and are not eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms. The seats are allocated on the following geographical basis:

  • African States: 13 seats
  • Asia-Pacific States: 13 seats
  • Latin American and Caribbean States: 8 seats
  • Western European and other States: 7 seats
  • Eastern European States: 6 seats

The current members include Cuba and the United States, both of whose terms expire on December 31, 2019, while Venezuela is also a member with its term expiring on December 31, 2018.

Council’s UPR Working Group for Cuba’s UPR[4]

The UPRs are conducted by the Council’s 47 members acting as an UPR Working Group. In addition, any other U.N. Member State can take part in the review.

Each State’s review is assisted by a groups of three States, known as a “troika,” who serve as rapporteurs. The selection of the troikas for each State is done through a drawing of lots following elections for the Council membership in the General Assembly

For Cuba’s third UPR the Troika members are Egypt, Nepal and Peru.

The May 16 hearing will last three and a half hours, during which the state under review is given 70 minutes to present its report, as well as answer questions made by other states and present concluding remarks. The remaining 140 minutes are allocated to states participating in the review to ask questions, make comments and recommendations to the state under review.

The second stage of the process will be take place during the Council’s 39th period of sessions in September 2018, at which time the final report will be presented by the Troika.

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

[1] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Advance Questions for Cuba (First Batch); U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Advance Questions for Cuba (Second Batch); Hum. Rts. Council, Advance Questions for Cuba (Third Batch).

[2] U.N. High Comm. Hum. Rts., Press briefing note on Yemen, Cambodia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Montenegro (May 11, 2018); The UN denounces the blockade of the Cuban regime on the departure of human rights defenders, Diario de Cuba (May 11, 2018).

[3] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Background on Council Membership; U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Current Council Members.

[4] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Basic facts about the UPR; U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, List of Troikas (20th Session).

 

 

 

 

 

The Opening of the Current Session of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean  

During the week of May 7 the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), one of five U.N. entitles promoting economic and social development in the world, is holding its 37th biennial session, this time in Havana, Cuba.

Three important opening speeches were delivered on May 8 by Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel, ECLAC’s Executive Secretary Alicia Bárcena and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a native of Portugal. Here are highlights of these speeches.[1]

Cuba President’s Welcoming Speech[2]

 “ECLAC, which for decades has been a benchmark for economic and social knowledge in Latin America and the Caribbean, at a regional and global level, has contributed decisively to placing equity at the center of development, has shown that the region continues to be the most unequal planet, and has studied certain structural causes of the problem, which will surely be addressed in this meeting.”

“It is necessary to transform the culture of inequality, associated with the colonial past of our nations and which particularly affects the indigenous populations, people of African descent, girls and women. It is also, in our opinion, a consequence of imperialism, neoliberalism, macroeconomic policies that for decades favored the transnationals and deepened the differences: of classes, by the color of the skin, territories and urban and rural population.”

“There will also have to be serious challenges that include the slow growth of productivity, the lack of diversification of the productive structure and poor technological modernization.”

“There is no other option but to advance regional integration and development with equity, which will lead us to reverse the pyramid where, in the main countries of the region, the richest 1% of the population appropriates a huge part of the population’s riches.”

“ECLAC correctly points out, ‘inequality has not only economic, but also political, social and cultural implications’”.

“The distribution of income and wealth is the central element in closing this gap and for this, States must have access to food, work, quality education, health, and the right to education. culture and better conditions of existence.”

“While it is true that we must address, as the central theme of this meeting, ‘the inefficiency of inequality,’ the real objective must be the ‘search for equal opportunities and social justice’ and, consequently, the reduction and elimination of the growing poverty, suffered by hundreds of millions of Latin Americans and the Caribbean.”

“The recent history of the region showed that adequate public policies led to successful results of social progress and economic growth that drew tens of millions of people out of hunger, illiteracy and lack of culture, as reported by ECLAC. It would be inadmissible and cruel to  attempt to impose a neoliberal wave like the one that made our peoples go back a decade.”

“It is necessary to fight to make the theme of the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 a reality, that is, that ‘nobody is left behind’”.

“With the Paris Agreement, a path leading to confronting climate change may have begun, affecting all of us in one way or another; but in the Caribbean States these threats multiply and impose enormous strains on their economies that require special and differentiated treatment, and, at the same time, greater support, solidarity and cooperation.”

“It is essential that, when addressing the issue of inequality, we also do so with access to knowledge.”

“Information and communication technologies favor development. To reduce the gap between ‘those who have’ and ‘those who do not have”, and between rich and poor countries, it will be essential to try to eliminate the difference between ‘those who know”‘ and ‘those who do not know,’ between knowledge and the ignorance.”

“We must bet on a use of these technologies that promotes social solidarity, creates values, contributes to peace and the economic, cultural and political sustainability of our nations.”

“In the same way, the growing monopolization of the media and the attempt to impose, through them, a single thought, consumerism, manipulation of the will of people and values ​​far removed from it, obliges us to reflect and constantly analyze. the realities and aspirations of our countries.”

“For our part, despite the difficulties facing the Cuban economy, particularly due to the intensification of the blockade imposed on Cuba for almost six decades, we will continue to focus on the development goals set in order to preserve, expand and deepen our achievements.” (Emphasis added.)

“We work on the preparation of a National Plan for Economic and Social Development until 2030, whose strategic axes are intertwined with the Sustainable Development Goals, as part of the process of updating the Economic and Social Model, begun in 2011, governed by the premise inviolable not to leave any homeless citizen. We will never apply the known shock therapies that only affect the most needy.”

“In a particular way, we reiterate in this forum the commitment of Cuba with solidarity cooperation towards other countries, based on mutual respect, selfless help and complementarity. Despite shortcomings and difficulties, we will maintain this will, following the principle of sharing what we have, not what we have left.”

“We have received the presidency pro tempore of ECLAC for the period 2018-2020, and of two of its subsidiary bodies: the Committee for South-South Cooperation and the Forum of the Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean on Sustainable Development.”

“We do so with a high commitment and awareness of the challenges we face, focused on continuing to promote cooperation among the countries of the region in the materialization of the new 2030 Agenda. We will put our efforts in supporting ECLAC’s vocation to promote the search for a fair, equitable and inclusive world that recognizes people as the central element of sustainable development. We will strive to promote unity within diversity. . . . [while] ratifying the thesis of José Martí: ‘the good of many is preferable to the opulence of a few.’”

 ECLAC’s Executive Secretary’s Speech[3]

 Cuba “is testing its own paths in the face of the brutal human costs that the imposition of an unjust blockade has imposed for more than 50 years. We evaluate it every year, as an Economic Commission, and we know that this blockade costs the Cuban people more than 130 billion dollars, at current prices, and that it has left an indelible mark on its economic structure. (Emphasis added.)

“As of 2010, ECLAC has positioned equality as a fundamental value of development and as an irreducible ethical principle and in synchrony with the growing relevance of the issue in citizen demands.”

“We have said that equality is at the center of development, because it provides policies with an ultimate foundation centered on a rights approach, with a humanistic vocation that reflects the most precious heritage of modernity. It is also a favorable condition to move towards a development model focused on closing structural gaps and technological convergence that allows us to advance to higher levels of productivity, with economic and environmental sustainability, thinking about future generations.”

“Today we take a step further and we bring you a proposal and a bet, with policy proposals that we have expressed in the document called: The inefficiency of inequality.”

“We affirm that inequality is not only unfair, but inefficient and unsustainable. We have brought empirical evidence to show this statement, why it is inefficient. Not only from the social point of view is unacceptable, but from the economic point of view is not viable for the future.”

“Why do we affirm this? Because it generates and sustains institutions that do not promote productivity or innovation, because it rewards or punishes class, ethnic or gender belonging, and because it generates a culture of privilege that reinforces these inequalities, which incorporates inequality into social relations as if it were something natural, as if it were something acceptable, and it reproduces it in time.”

“Discrimination closes opportunities and also represents the loss of learning and innovation paths favorable to productivity, especially in the discrimination of women. The glass roof that restricts the advancement of women in their careers is also a ceiling to productivity.”

“Today in our continent poverty has the face of a woman. One third of Latin American and Caribbean women do not manage to generate income and are economically dependent, and when they do, their salary is significantly lower than that of men with equal education and skills.”

“The costs of excluding institutions are many, let’s notice the great losses of potential productivity that result from the inequality of access to education and that occur in a generation and sometimes in our region are transmitted to other generations, intergenerationally, and this is especially serious in the context of the technological revolution, where the capacities . . . to absorb technical progress endogenously, are indispensable to compete and generate employment.”

“Our endemic structural heterogeneity is the factory of inequality, it has its roots in the culture of privilege, and it emerges, precisely, in that conjunction of structures with little diversification, low intensity of knowledge, and inefficient institutions. That is why we propose a path, to move from the culture of privileges to the culture of equality, to achieve these tasks that are undoubtedly associated with growth and productive diversification with innovation. But we must . . . expand our fiscal spaces to sustain financing capacity and also to protect those citizens who are going to be marginalized in the context of these profound transformations, especially in the world of work.”

“We bet on a new welfare regime, which is based on public finances that move from the current role of crisis management to one that is development-oriented, progressive and sufficient tax systems, increase in public investment, which is the most punished variable when there is a matter of fiscal consolidation, increase in public investment and social spending, to achieve just closing these structural gaps.”

“We need a macroeconomics for development, which seeks to preserve. Yes, real stability is very important . . . in those decades where it was so urgent to preserve and achieve real stability and financial stability through policies . . . that protect . . . public investment.”

“A determined struggle against corruption in the public and private sphere is required. It is sad . . . that 57% of Latin American citizens do not trust their institutions; we have to change this. That is why a mechanism is urgently needed, renewed institutions that allow greater control on the part of citizens: If paying taxes is a duty, monitoring public spending is a right. . . . [Because] no matter how hard the countries try to make a fiscal discipline, a national fiscal policy, it will be necessary to establish global fiscal rules to eradicate the transnationalization of the evasion, the tax illusion and ending the scheme of globalized fiscal privileges.”

“The increase in investment rates in Latin America remains a pending task. Notice that the levels of gross fixed-capital formation have been below the levels recorded in other regions, while Latin America has been around 20%, East Asia has reached very high levels, over 30%, reaching sometimes 40%. We can no longer ignore it, the growing gap between these two regions is closely linked to investment and innovation.”

“That is why today we want to reinforce our conviction and commitment to propose, to build together with the Member States, precisely, this road that we have to travel together, also making an accurate reading of what is happening in the present. Because it is true that we have better prospects for global growth, that there is better synchrony, more than 140 countries growing at the same time; but there are worrying contingencies and uncertainties.”

“We are also alert to trade confrontations between global economic factors, coupled with the return of more protectionist policies. We see with concern the deployment of a rapid technological revolution, which is difficult for us to keep pace and pace, while drawing potential threats to the future of work.”

“ECLAC in our region has projected for this year a growth of 2.2%. We are growing again after a couple of years of recession, and also the trade picks up slightly with better prices in raw materials; but what is a pending task . . . is regional integration.”

“We must continue to fight for greater regional integration, not only commercial but productive with integrated industries . . . in our region. This is more necessary than ever, because our region . . . is still the most unequal region in the world. All our singular richness in natural resources and human capacities still does not translate into a more dignified life for all its inhabitants.”

“In this past year more than 187 million people continue to live in poverty and, of these, 62 million in extreme poverty. [This is a] warning sign, because we are committed to eliminate poverty in all its forms by 2030. Then we have to accelerate the pace and propose a great environmental impulse that promotes industrial and technological policies that deploy the range of low-carbon productive activities such as renewable energy.”

“We propose greater integration of new, innovative, digital, technological industries that connect us, that link us, that link us through productive chains, human chains and that stimulate growth.”

“The region must overcome a development style that expresses environmental inefficiencies and is highly exposed to the growing impact of climate change. And the truth is that we do not have to look for the evidence very far, the recent catastrophic events show it clearly.”

“The most affected part of our region, where all of us must strongly support each other is the Caribbean, and that is precisely why at ECLAC we have made the decision that in all ECLAC sessions there will always be a session of the First Caribbean. This is fundamental, because the historical magnitude of the hurricanes Irma and María underscore the urgency to act and act collectively.” (Emphasis added.)

“The economic costs of climate change in the region, calculated by ECLAC, to 2050 are between 1.5% and 5% of regional GDP. In some Caribbean nations, in the recent disaster, this calculation even reaches figures above 100% of GDP. This is what happens to us in the region and its impacts are not linear, they affect heterogeneously in different regions, periods and differently from social groups, especially the most marginalized.”

“Therefore, it is urgent that the civilizing agenda of the 2030 Agenda has equality in the center, with an identity and domicile in Latin America and the Caribbean, that from our history, from our rich diversity, from our shared hopes and challenges common we give it its own face, our institutions and we impose the urgencies that our reality demands.”

“The 2030 Agenda outlines a way to launch a new generation of policies and institutions, a new style of development and achieve a virtuous circle of growth, equality and sustainability. We owe it to the present and future generations.”

U.N. Secretary-General’s Speech[4]

“Decade after decade, ECLAC has been a progressive paradigm and authoritative voice of social justice in the world economy. The Commission has played a precursor role in integrating the economic, social and environmental dimensions of development. ECLAC has promoted, with perseverance and courage, a vision of development that considers equality as the driving force of growth. You at ECLAC have focused on a deeper meaning of equality, have looked beyond income, as a measure of well-being and as a decisive test of development cooperation, and have always maintained attention to equality of rights in its broadest sense, economic, social and political equality.”

“ECLAC has done everything on the basis of solid, rigorous research and delivery to share experiences that link national priorities with global deliberations.”

“Seventy years after its founding, ECLAC continues to be present where it has always been, in the first line of efforts to promote an equitable globalization, presenting empirically based policies, technical analysis and knowledge aimed at forging an economic, structural and progressive transformation .”

“This decision and this approach are now more necessary than ever before. We know the challenges facing our world. It is true that globalization has brought many benefits: more people have emerged from extreme poverty than ever before, the global middle class is greater than ever, more people have a longer and healthier life, but too many people are left behind. Women are still less likely to participate in the labor market and gender wage inequality remains a global concern.”

“Unemployment among young people reaches alarming levels, with a tragic impact on the well-being of young people, on the development possibilities of countries and even in some parts of the world with a negative impact on security.”

“Fundamental inequalities make it more difficult for people to enjoy better health, education and access to justice. These inequalities make it harder for people to earn a decent salary and live with dignity. For more than a generation, the richest 1% of the world’s income has grown twice as fast as the poorest 50%.”

“Like it or not, the increase in inequality has become the face of globalization and has generated discontent, intolerance and social instability, especially among our youth.”

“People wonder, rightly: What world is this in which a handful of men – because the richest in the world are men, in extreme wealth gender inequality also exists – accumulates the same amount of wealth as half poorest of humanity?”

“At the same time, the way we live and work is being transformed by the effect of technologies, from bioengineering to artificial intelligence and much more. But we must take advantage of the potential of the fourth industrial revolution and at the same time protect ourselves from the risks it poses. This is probably the most difficult challenge that we will have in the next two decades, making the fourth industrial revolution an origin of wellbeing and progress and not a risk that can have very negative consequences for the lives of our societies and our economies.”

“In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, we must redefine the concept of development, especially in transition regions and middle-income countries, such as those in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

“I congratulate ECLAC for partnering with the European Commission and the Development Center of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to allocate a fund of 10 million euros to countries in transition. We need a global economy that benefits everyone and creates opportunities for all. We need an equitable globalization.”

For this,  . . the 2030 Agenda is our fundamental contribution. The eradication of poverty is and remains our top priority. The 2030 Agenda is our road map, and its objectives and goals are the instruments to achieve that goal of eradicating extreme poverty.”

“The objectives of Sustainable Development make clear our ambition and our commitment: to empower women, achieve productive inclusion of young people, reduce climate risk, create decent jobs, demobilize clean investments in favor of inclusive growth and offer dignity and more opportunities for everyone on a healthy planet.”

We “must support the efforts made by the countries to mobilize their internal resources; but those efforts must be accompanied by a stronger commitment on the part of the international community to combat tax evasion, money laundering and illicit financial flows.”

“The audacity of the 2020-2030 Agenda calls for equally bold changes in the work and activities of the United Nations. Our efforts to reposition the United Nations Development System are based on creating a new generation of country teams that support countries, that reinforce national leadership and promote national ownership in favor of sustainable development.”

“We are committed to creating a system that responds to demand, aimed at achieving results at scale and rendering accounts for the provision of support to make the 2020-2030 Agenda a reality. The support of ECLAC is essential to help the countries of the region to implement the Agenda and sustainable development.”

“In September 2019, I will convene a climate summit in New York, where leaders from all fields will meet to fulfill the Paris Commitments, but also to elaborate more ambitious plans for sustainable development, because the Paris Commitments do not they are enough; plans that are based on investment in a resilient and low carbon development.”

Conclusion

As is typical for occasions like this, grandiose language is used to proclaim the objectives of the organization. Whether such language is justified, only time will tell.

It was surprising to this observer to hear Executive Secretary Bárcena say anything about the U.S. embargo (blockade) of Cuba. It was even more surprising to hear her say that “the blockade costs the Cuban people more than 130 billion dollars, at current prices,” which happens to be the same amount claimed by Cuba last November in the U.N. General Assembly debate over the annual resolution against this U.S. embargo.[5]

Although the Executive Secretary said, “We [at ECLAC] evaluate it [the impact of the embargo (blockade)] “every year,” she did not provide details about the calculations or methodology that produced the amount of the alleged damages or who or what ECLAC office did that analysis. Nor did she indicate whether or not Cuban officials were involved in that ECLAC effort.

Nevertheless, Cuban officials undoubtedly were pleased to hear her make this pronouncement even though it does not constitute conclusive proof of such an amount (or any other amount). Instead, it is an another allegation that has not been subjected to U.S. (or any other) analysis, cross-examination or contrary evidence.

As this blog has suggested, both Cuba and the U.S. should agree to submit all of their damage claims against each other, including the embargo claim, for resolution to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the Netherlands under its Arbitration Rules 2012 before a panel of three or five arbitrators.[6]

These points regarding the alleged damages from the embargo (blockade) are notwithstanding this blogger’s consistent opposition to the embargo and urging the U.S. to end the embargo as soon as possible. It does not advance any real U.S. interest and obviously imposes some negative impact on Cuba. Moreover, the alleged damages obviously constitute a contingent liability of the U.S., and any rational actor should seek ways to reduce such a contingent liability, the easiest of which is stopping the practice.[7]

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

[1] Other aspects of the ECLAC meeting  are d discussed in ECLAC, News;  Borrero, Cuba shows that economic growth and equality are not incompatible, Granma (May 9, 2018).

[2] Diaz-Canel, Cuba reiterates its commitment to partnership for development, based on mutual respect, selfless help and complementarity, Granma (May 8, 2018).

[3]  Bárcena, The 2030 Agenda outlines a way to launch a new style of development, Granma (May 8, 2018). Ms. Bárcena holds degrees in biology and public administration from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and Harvard University and has held positions at U.N. headquarters before becoming ECLAC’s Executive Secretary. (Ten years of the first woman in charge of ECLAC, Granma (May 8, 2018).)

[4] Guterres, Let’s commit ourselves to continue creating, to keep working and to keep fighting for not leaving anyone behind, Granma (May 8, 2018).

[5] See Another U.S. General Assembly Resolution Condemns U.S. Embargo (Blockade) of Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 1, 2017).

[6] Resolution of U.S. and Cuba’s Damage Claims, dwkcommentaries.com (April 6, 2015); Resolving U.S. and Cuba Damage Claims, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 13, 2015).

[7] See posts listed in the “U.S. Embargo of Cuba” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA.

 

Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Unsatisfactory “Case for Reparations”

The June 2014 issue of The Atlantic devotes 20 black-bordered pages to “The Case for Reparations” as the lead and cover article by Ta-Nehisi Coates, its national correspondent.

This is a serious subject by an author who has been obtaining some prominence or notoriety this year occasioned by his best-selling book, “Between the World and Me,” which was discussed in a previous post.

Moreover, on September 28, 2015, the MacArthur Foundation awarded one of its prestigious Fellows or “genius” grants to Coates and asserted that he “brings personal reflection and historical scholarship to bear on America’s most contested issues . . . without shallow polemic and in a measured style.” In “The Case for Reparations,” according to the Foundation, “Coates grapples with the rationalizations for slavery and their persistence in twentieth-century policies like Jim Crow and redlining . . . [and] compellingly argues for remuneration for the economic impact on African Americans denied the ability to accumulate wealth or social status for generations. [The article is] deeply felt and intensely researched.”

I, therefore, was expecting a serious discussion of this important issue.

Instead, I was profoundly disappointed in the analysis as well as the quality of the research and writing of this article and strongly disagree with MacArthur’s glowing commentary on the article.

Coates’ Discussion of Reparations

Coates mentions that certain scholars have discussed how reparations might be implemented. One, he says, suggested multiplying the number of African Americans in the population by the difference between white and black per capita income and then presumably paying that difference to each African American each year for a decade or two. Another, Coates reports, proposed a program of job training and public works for all poor people. (P. 69) But Coates does not endorse either one.

Instead Coates hides in generalizations. He says reparations means “the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences” and “a revolution of American consciousness, a reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history” (p.70).

On the last page of the article (p. 71) Coates becomes more specific by advocating congressional adoption of a bill for a federal study of the issue of reparations that has been offered by Representative John Conyers (Dem., MI) for the last 25 years. Without examining the details of the bill or the arguments advanced for the bill by Conyers, Coates states, “No one can know what would come out of such a [study and] debate. Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of back people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed. But I believe that wrestling with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane.”

This is not, as MacArthur suggests, a compelling argument “for remuneration for the economic impact on African Americans denied the ability to accumulate wealth or social status for generations.”

The Conyers’ Bill

An examination of the Conyers bill itself does not buttress the claimed genius of the Coates article. In the current session of Congress this bill is H.R.40: The Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. A quick examination of the Library of Congress THOMAS website reveals that the bill (in sections 4, 5 and 7) would establish a commission of seven members (three to be appointed by the U.S. President, three by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and one by the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate) to hold hearings and issue a report of its findings and recommendations.

The key to the bill is section 2(a), which would make the following factual findings that Coates takes most of 20 pages to elucidate:

“(1) approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865;

(2) the institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the Government of the United States from 1789 through 1865;

(3) the slavery that flourished in the United States constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, and cultural heritage, and denied them the fruits of their own labor; and

(4) sufficient inquiry has not been made into the effects of the institution of slavery on living African-Americans and society in the United States.”

Section 2(b) of the bill  then states the commission would examine and report on these factual predicates plus the “de facto discrimination against freed slaves and their descendants from the end of the Civil War to the present, including economic, political, and social discrimination.” With such factual determinations the commission would be charged to “recommend appropriate ways to educate the American public of the Commission’s findings” and “appropriate remedies.”

Representative Conyers’ website  contains a discussion of the bill that at least alludes to the following challenging sub-issues that would face such a commission and that are not examined by Coates: “whether an apology is owed, whether compensation is warranted and, if so, in what form and who should be eligible.”

Resolution for Rectification of Misdeeds Against African-Americans

More importantly, Coates’ article does not mention a resolution (H.Res.194) adopted in 2008 by the U.S. House of Representatives that has lengthy factual preambles about the evils of slavery and Jim Crow. [1] The House in H.Res.194 more importantly also:

  1. “acknowledges that slavery is incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal;”
  2. “acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow;”
  3. “apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and  their ancestors who suffered under slavery and  Jim Crow; and”
  4. “expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.”

Yes, this is only a resolution by only one chamber of the Congress, but it is closer to the result apparently being advocated by Coates than the Conyers’ bill.

U.S. Presidential Statements About Slavery

H.Res.194 in a preamble asserts that “on July 8, 2003, during a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, President George W. Bush acknowledged slavery’s continuing legacy in American life and the need to confront that legacy when he stated that slavery `was . . . one of the greatest crimes of history . . . The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destiny is set: liberty and justice for all.”[2]

In another preamble H.Res.194 asserts, “President Bill Clinton also acknowledged the deep-seated problems caused by the continuing legacy of racism against African-Americans that began with slavery when he initiated a national dialogue about race.”

Neither of these presidential statements is mentioned by Coates, both of which support his opinion favoring reparations.

Caribbean States’ Reparations Claims

Apparently at least 14 states in the Caribbean are preparing claims for reparations for slavery against their former colonial rulers: Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron recently rejected that reparations idea.[3]

Again there is no mention of these claims by Coates even though they lend credence to his advocacy of similar reparations in the U.S.[4]

Litigation Over Contracts for Deed

Coates leads the article with a lengthy discussion of problems faced by blacks on the west side of Chicago in the 1960’s in financing purchases of homes and as a result being forced to do so on contracts for deed with unscrupulous sellers (pp. 56-59). Coates then enthusiastically endorses these black purchasers’ bringing a federal lawsuit against the sellers for reparations (or money damages). On the next page (p.60), however, Coates tells the reader, without any citation of source, that in 1976 the black plaintiffs lost a jury trial supposedly due to anti-black prejudice of the jury and even later in the article (p.67) he says that as a result of the lawsuit some of the plaintiffs were allowed to own their homes outright while others obtained regular mortgages.

Coates, however, fails to mention that according to a secondary source from the University of Illinois-Chicago, the west-side case went to trial in the Spring of 1976, and in November 1979, the jury decided that the sellers had taken advantage of the buyers for higher profits, but that the sellers were so ruthless they would have cheated anyone, not only blacks, and, therefore, the jury rejected the racial discrimination claim, and the plaintiffs’ lawyers decided not to appeal this decision.

That same secondary source reports that a related case from the south side of Chicago went to trial in 1972 before a federal district judge with a jury. At the close of the evidence, the court directed a verdict against the plaintiffs saying that they had not proved a prima facie case of discrimination. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial. That new trial occurred in 1979, without a jury, before a district judge who decided in favor of the defendants, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Clyde Ross was prominently mentioned at the start of the Coates’ article about the housing discrimination that led to the above litigation, and after the publishing of the Coates article, Ross said in an interview, “I don’t know why we would even discuss [reparations] . . .when that would never happen. It involves taking money, property, from other people, from the people with power and wealth. How could that ever come to be? In theory, yes it is a good idea, but it’s better to be practical. I support equality under the law. I just want to be able to pay off a mortgage knowing that I am getting the same deal as the white guy. That’s all I ask.”

Coates also did not uncover in his research the successful Minnesota lawsuit in the 1920’s by a black couple against white landlords who after accepting contract-for-deed payments for 25 years denied the couple possession of the Minneapolis house on the false assertion that their payments were only rent. The couple’s attorney, by the way, was Lena Olive Smith, the state’s first black female lawyer who became the leader of the city’s NAACP branch in the 1930s.

Conclusion

I am not a scholar of race relations in the U.S. or of reparations generally or in the U.S. specifically. The above discussion of facts that apparently were not discovered by Coates was based upon this blogger’s perfunctory Internet searching.

The Coates article also is difficult to read because of the lack of an introduction and conclusion and of any headings or subdivisions amidst the parade of often densely packed paragraphs that do not follow in a logical order.[5]

This blogger as a retired lawyer might be seen as engaging in an inappropriate  lawyerly criticism of the Coates’ article. But Coates presumably is advocating for others to embrace the conclusion that reparations are a necessary response to a major societal problem. As an advocate, he should write to be more persuasive.

This blogger as a white American is supportive of civil and human rights generally and is willing to consider a well-written and documented case for U.S. reparations for slavery and Jim Crow. Unfortunately the Coates article does not do that. It needs additional research and a major rewrite. (As always, I invite others’ comments of agreement or disagreement.)

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

[1] U.S. House of Reps., 110th Cong., 2nd Sess.,  H.Res.194 (July 29, 2008)..As February 23, 2007, was the bicentennial of the British Parliament’s abolition of slave trading, the 110th U.S. Congress (2007-2009) had 150 bills and resolutions that mentioned the word “slavery,” but this blog has not “drilled down” to determine their details.

[2] President Bush Speaks at Goree Island in Sengal (July 8, 2003)

[3] E.g., Search for “slavery,” Guardian; Bilefsky, David Cameron Grapples with Issue of Slavery Reparations in Jamaica, N.Y. Times (Sept. 30, 2015); Assoc. Press, Cameron Provides Caribbean Aid, Rejects Slavery Reparations, N.Y. Times (Sept. 30, 2015); Room for Debate: Are Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Reparations Due?, N.Y. Times (Oct. 8, 2015).

[4] Coates does mention Massachusetts’ granting a 1783 petition for reparations by a black freewoman; 17th and 18th century Quakers’ granting reparations; the 1987 formation of a National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America; the 1993 NAACP’s endorsement of reparations; a lawsuit for reparations brought by Harvard Law School Professor Charles Ogletree, Jr. (without mentioning its details or outcome); and Germany’s reparations to Israel for the Holocaust (pp. 61, 70-71).

[5] The online version of the article added headings I through X, but most of them are quotations from sources in the sections, requiring the reader to dive into the sections to discover their significance. Another post discusses Coates’ “The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration,” The Atlantic (Oct. 2015), which also has chapter headings, most of which do not help the reader.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More about Coates:

 

Brooks: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/opinion/david-brookss-letter-to-ta-nehisi-coates-about-race.html

 

Ltrs re column: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/opinion/david-brookss-letter-to-ta-nehisi-coates-about-race.html

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/david_brooks_scolds_ta_nehisi_coates_i_think_you_distort_history/

 

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/dont-be-fooled-all-forelock-tugging-david

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-brooks-nyt-ta-nehisi-coates

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/ta-nehisi-coates-david-brooks-american-dream

 

http://jezebel.com/listening-to-ta-nehisi-coates-whilst-snuggled-deep-with-1718506352

 

http://www.alternet.org/media/david-brooks-relies-ignorant-white-privilege-attack-ta-nehisi-coates-new-book

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/marknuckols/2015/07/17/tanehisi-coates-cheers-deaths-of-911-rescuers-david-brooks-apologizes-for-being-white-n2026881

 

http://aaihs.org/ta-nehisi-coates-david-brooks-and-the-master-narrative-of-american-history/

 

http://www.citypaper.com/arts/books/bcp-072915-books-coates-gunnery-20150724-story.html

 

https://www.thewrap.com/new-york-times-columnist-david-brooks-blasted-for-white-privilege-letter-to-ta-nehisi-coates/

 

http://flavorwire.com/528823/the-american-dream-david-brooks-loves-so-much-is-rich-white-americas-greatest-tool-of-social-control