United States of American (USA)

Canadian Analysis of Medical Problems of Its Diplomats in Cuba

A new study commissioned by the Canadian government concluded that fumigation against mosquitoes in Cuba and not “sonic attacks” may have caused about 40 U.S. and Canadian diplomats and family members in Havana to fall ill.[1]

The researchers for this study said that they had detected different levels of brain damage in an area responsible for memory, concentration and sleep-and-wake cycle and that “there are very specific types of toxins that affect these kinds of nervous systems … and these are insecticides, pesticides, organophosphates — specific neurotoxins.” They then concluded that cholinesterase, a key enzyme required for the proper functioning of the nervous system, was being blocked there.

Some pesticides work by inhibiting that enzyme, the report said, and during the 2016-2018 period when diplomats became ill, normal fumigation in Cuba was stepped up due to the Zika epidemic in the Caribbean. That increased fumigation in and around residences where they lived in Cuba was conducted by both Cuban and Canadian authorities.

The Canadian (and U.S.?) embassies actively sprayed in offices, as well as inside and outside diplomatic residences — sometimes five times more frequently than usual. Many times, spraying operations were carried out every two weeks, according to [Canadian?] embassy records. Toxicological analysis of the Canadian victims confirmed the presence of pyrethroid and organophosphate — two compounds found in fumigation products. There also was a correlation between the individuals most affected by the symptoms and the number of fumigations that were performed at their residence.

The Canadian researchers will now collaborate with Cuban officials to determine whether any Cubans suffered similar brain injuries.

The Canadian study was conducted by a team of researchers affiliated with the Brain Repair Centre at Dalhousie University and the Nova Scotia Health Authority. In charge was Dr. Alon Friedman, from the Department of Neurosciences and Medical Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Canada.

Reactions

Cuban experts consider that the hypothesis presented by the Canadian team is a serious attempt to explain the symptoms reported through scientific research, “although it is premature to reach conclusions,” says Doctor of Science Mitchell Joseph Valdés-Sosa, General director of the Neurosciences Center of Cuba.

So far no U.S. reactions to this study have been found.

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

[1] Friedman, Calkin & Bowen, Havana Syndrome: Neuroanatomical and Neurofunctional Assessment in Acquired Brain Injury Due to Unknown Etiology (May 24, 2019); Reuters, Exposure to neurotoxin may have caused Canadian, U.S. diplomats’ ailments in Cuba, Globe & Mail (Sept. 19, 2019); Havana syndrome: Exposure to neurotoxin may have been cause, CBS News (Sept. 19, 2019); Confirmed: “There is no Havana syndrome caused by mysterious weapons,” Cubadebate (Sept. 16, 2019); Cuban authorities endorse the new theory on the health conditions of diplomats, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 20, 2019). The medical problems of U.S. and Canadian diplomats in Cuba have been discussed in many posts in this blog. (See “U.S. Diplomats Medical Problems in Cuba, 2017-18” and “U.S. Diplomats Medical Problems in Cuba, 2019” sections in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA.

Implications for Cuba of Dismissal/Resignation of John Bolton as U.S. National Security Advisor

While acting as National Security Advisor, John Bolton was a strong advocate for U.S. hostility towards Cuba.[1] His dismissal on September 10 [2] raised the hope that this might lead to the U.S. backing away from at least some of these hostile policies.

Those hopes apparently were unjustified.[3]

On September 12, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio tweeted, “Just spoke to [President Trump] on #Venezuela. It’s true he disagreed with some of the views of previous advisor [John Bolton]. But as he reminded me it’s actually the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what many claim or assume. If in fact the direction of policy changes it won’t be to make it weaker.”

This was confirmed by the President in his tweet later the same day: “In fact, my views on Venezuela, and especially Cuba, were far stronger than those of John Bolton. He was holding me back!”

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

[1] E.g., John Bolton’s New Threat Against Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Apr. 2, 2019); National Security Advisor Bolton Discusses New U.S. Sanctions Against Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (April 19, 2019).

[2] Baker, Trump Ousts John Bolton as National Security Advisor, N.Y. Times (Sept. 10, 2019).

[3] Rubio, Tweet (Sept. 12, 2019); Trump, Tweet (Sept. 12, 2019); Trump: My views on Venezuela and Cuba were stronger than those of John Bolton, Cubadebate (Sept. 13, 2019).

U.S. Intervention in Cuba’s War of Independence from Spain, 1898

On Feb. 15, 1898, the USS Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor where it was temporarily stationed to provide support for Americans in the city during Cuba’s war for independence from Spain. A subsequent naval board of inquiry concluded that there was no US negligence in operating the ship and that it was “destroyed by the explosion of a submarine mine.” Although it did not say Spain did it, that was the logical conclusion. And William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers launched a campaign “Remember the Maine” that fueled U.S. citizens’ pressure for war against Spain. [1]

For various additional reasons, Americans in 1898 “flocked to the cause of ‘Cuba Libre,’ especially once fighting broke out on the island in 1895. The plight of the Cubans was particularly affecting: “Over the next three years, hundreds of thousands of civilians died, many in Spanish concentration camps, the existence of which spurred hundreds of Americans to join illegal filibuster missions to aid the rebels.”

On April 11, 1898, President William McKinley asked the Congress “to authorize and empower the President to take measures to secure a full and final termination of hostilities between the government of Spain and the people of Cuba, and to ensure in the island the establishment of a stable government, capable of maintaining order and observing its international obligations, ensuring peace and tranquillity and the security of its citizens as well as our own, and to use the military and naval forces of the United States as may be necessary for these purposes.” [2]

In making this request, McKinley “was moved above all by this humanitarian impulse.. . . [The] primary driver was the widely held belief that Spain was destroying Cuba. ‘A country nearly as large as England, with all the material conditions of opulent civilization, has been made a charnel house,” said John James Ingalls, a Kansas politician. The Spanish-American War was a ‘popular’ conflict in the literal sense.”

Nine days later (April 20, 1898) the Congress adopted a joint resolution for “the recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba, demanding that the government of Spain relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and directing the President of the United States to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry these resolutions into effect.” What became known as the Teller Amendment was proposed by Senator Henry M. Teller (Rep., CO) and adopted by the Congress. It disclaimed “any disposition of intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.”

Because there were practically no military-trained men ready to fight, “McKinley authorized three volunteer cavalry regiments (800 to 1,000 soldiers), to be drawn from the ranks of men whose skills and life experiences made them predisposed to martial pursuits: cowboys, policemen, even college athletes.”

“The most famous of the three regiments, and the only one sent to Cuba, was the First United States Volunteer Cavalry — which reporters soon nicknamed the Rough Riders. Thanks to the renown of Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1897 as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, had said, ““A rich nation which is slothful, timid or unwieldy is an easy prey for any people which still retains those most valuable of all qualities, the soldierly virtues.”’and who in 1898 left the Department of the Navy to become the Volunteer Calvary’s lieutenant colonel, the regiment was overwhelmed with applicants.”

“The Rough Riders landed in Cuba on June 22, 1898. By August, Spain was suing for peace. In the subsequent Treaty of Paris, Spain recognized Cuba’s independence and ceded Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the U.S.

“Above all, the Rough Riders became instant celebrities because they embodied the public’s newfound, idealistic militarism. ‘Whether Fifth Avenue millionaires or Western cowboys, they fought together and died together in Cuba for the great American principles of liberty, equality and humanity,’ an editorialist for The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote.”

From the U.S. perspective, Teddy Roosevelt and the Roughriders military success in Cuba became part of U.S. legend, and Clay Risen, a deputy Op-Ed editor of the New York Times has revisited that legend in a Times article and a book.[3]

Risen claims that this “war, however brief, was in fact a defining moment in America’s emergence as a global power. It captured the imagination of millions and changed how everyday citizens saw their place in the world. No longer content to merely inspire freedom for the world’s oppressed, . . . [many U.S. citizens] decided they had a personal obligation to bring freedom to them.”

“Underlying [this and other 20^th century U.S. wars] is the same broadly held, deeply committed missionary zeal that drove . . . the Rough Riders to war. Until Americans learn to balance their commitment to global justice with an awareness of the limits to military prowess, the country will continue to make these mistakes.”

Nevertheless, Risen asserts that this was was “a half-baked, poorly executed, unnecessary conflict that pushed an immature military power onto the world stage.”

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

[1] See U.S. Entry Into Cuba’s War of Independence and Establishment of Protectorate of Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (April 23, 2017). Michael Beschloss in “Presidents of War” asserts that the naval board of inquiry was under implicit pressure to conclude that the Navy was not at fault, but that subsequent Navy studies concluded that the cause probably was not a Spanish mine. Indeed, in 1976, a team of American naval investigators concluded that the Maine explosion was likely caused by a fire that ignited its ammunition stocks, not by a Spanish mine or act of sabotage. (See Beschloss Discusses “Presidents of War at Westminster Town Hall Forum, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 15, 2018).

[2] Teller Amendment, Wikipedia.

[3] Risen, The Rough Riders’ Guide to World Domination, N,Y. Times (June 2, 2019); Risen, The Crowded Hour: Theodore Roosevelt, the Rough Riders, and Dawn of the American Century (Simon & Schuster, 2019): Millard, Book Review: Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, N.Y. Times Book Review (June 4, 2019); Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders Involvement in Cuba’s War of Independence, dwkcommentaries.com (June 20, 2019).

The Importance of a Growing U.S. Population

A Wall Street Journal columnist, Bret Stephens, has demonstrated the importance of a growing U.S. population and the need for immigration to sustain such growth.[1]

“A decade ago, America’s fertility rate, at 2.12 children for every woman, was just above the replacement rate. That meant there could be modest population growth without immigration. But the fertility rate has since fallen: It’s now below replacement and at an all-time low.”

“Without immigration, our demographic destiny . . . [would leave] us with the worst of both worlds: economic stagnation without social stability. Multiethnic America would tear itself to pieces fighting over redistribution rights to the shrinking national pie.”

However, this “doesn’t have to be our fate. [I]immigrants aren’t a threat to American civilization. They are our civilization—bearers of a forward-looking notion of identity based on what people wish to become, not who they once were. Among those immigrants are 30% of all American Nobel Prize winners and the founders of 90 of our Fortune 500 companies—a figure that more than doubles when you include companies founded by the children of immigrants. If immigration means change, it forces dynamism. America is literally unimaginable without it.”[2]

The importance of immigrants for U.S. vitality was an important conclusion of a recent study of 46 Midwestern metropolitan areas conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a nonpartisan organization. In these metropolitan areas immigrants are helping offset population loss and economic strains caused by people moving away and by the retirements and deaths of native-born residents. In at least one of these metropolitan areas (Akron Ohio) immigrants and refugees were filling entry-level jobs for local manufacturing and food-processing companies that have had trouble hiring for those slots. This will become even more important in the future when many of the native-born workers will be retiring.[3]

Another recent study concluded that international immigration is giving a boost to population growth in big urban areas in the U.S. even as local residents flee for places with lower housing costs. The top beneficiaries of international immigration were primarily major coastal cities, led by the Miami metropolitan area.[4]

A more nuanced view of U.S. immigration is taken by Mark Krikorian, the Executive Director of Washington, D.C.’s Center for Immigration Studies, who would “limit immigration to the husbands, wives and young children of U.S. citizens; to skilled workers who rank among the top talents in the world; and to the small number of genuine refugees whose situation is so extraordinary that they cannot be helped where they are.” [5]

He claims that almost all of the arguments for limiting immigration share a common theme: protection. Even those advocating much more liberal immigration policies acknowledge the need to protect Americans from terrorists, foreign criminals and people who pose a threat to public health. Supporters of stricter limits, such as me, seek wider protections: protection for less-skilled workers, protection for the social safety net, and protection for the civic and cultural foundations of American society.”

Krikorian cites a study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine finding that immigration boosts economic growth in the long term and modestly improves the country’s demographic profile as the native population ages while creating a small net economic benefit. But this net economic benefit involves a redistribution from labor to capital.

In contrast to the U.S., Bret Stephens points out, is Japan. Its birth rate is very low. Its life expectancy is very high. Its immigration is very low. As a result, Japan has an aging, declining population. “Japan’s population shrank by nearly a million between 2010 and 2015, the first absolute decline since census-taking began in the 1920s. On current trend the [current] population [of 127 million] will fall to 97 million by the middle of the century. Barely 10% of Japanese will be children. The rest of the population will divide almost evenly between working-age adults and the elderly.”

Moreover, as “Morgan Stanley’s Ruchir Sharma has noted, lousy demographics mean a lousy economy.. . . In 2016, Japan’s growth rate was 1%—and that was a relatively good year by recent standard. . . . The average rate of GDP growth in countries with shrinking working-age populations is only 1.5%.”

In short, Stephens concludes, “Americans may need reminding that the culture of openness about which conservatives so often complain is our abiding strength. Openness to different ideas, foreign goods and new people. And their babies . . . are also made in God’s image.”[6]

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

[1] Stephens, ‘Other People’s Babies,’ W.S.J. (Mar. 20, 2017).

[2] Another example is New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, whose father, Wladyslaw Krzysztofowicz, was born in Romania (now Ukraine) and who came to the U.S. in 1952 with the sponsorship of a Presbyterian church in Portland, Oregon after he had been arrested by the Gestapo in World War II and imprisoned in a Yugoslav concentration camp after the war. (Kristof, Mr. Trump, Meet My Family, N.Y. Times (Jan. 2, 2017).

[3] Paral, Immigration a Demographic Lifeline in Midwestern Metros, Chicago Council on Global Affairs (Mar. 23, 2017); Connors, In the Midwest, Immigrants Are Stemming Population Decline, W.S.J. (Mar. 23, 2017).

[4] Kosisto, International Immigration Gives Boost to Big U.S. Cities, Study Says, W.S.J. (Mar. 23, 2017)

[5] Krikorian, The Real Immigration Debate: Who to Let In and Why, W.S.J. (Mar. 24, 2017) The Center for Immigration Studies asserts that it is “an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization. Since our founding in 1985, we have pursued a single mission – providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.”

[6] Therefore, Bret Stephens asserts that Iowa’s Congressman Stephen King was misguided and mistaken in his tweet about Dutch anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders who called his country’s Moroccan population as “scum.” King said: “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny, We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

United States Government’s Reactions to U.S.-Cuba Reconciliation

After looking at international and Cuban reactions to the December 17th announcement of U.S.-Cuba reconciliation, we now examine the reactions by the U.S. Government’s Executive Branch and Congress. A subsequent post will look at the reactions of the American people.

I. Executive Branch.

Led by President Barack Obama, the Executive Branch engaged in 18 months of secret negotiations with Cuba that resulted in the December 17th announcement of an accord between the two countries involving immediate release of certain prisoners, promised liberalization of U.S. regulations regarding U.S. exports to the island and U.S. citizens travel to Cuba, promised U.S. review of its designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” and further negotiations for reestablishment of normal diplomatic relations and for resolution of a long list of issues or disputes.

The U.S. Department of State immediately commenced review of the “terrorism’ designation and the Treasury and Commerce Departments in January announced the new and more liberal regulations regarding exports and travel.

The U.S., represented by Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, participated in the first round of further negotiations with Cuba in Havana in January, and the second round will be this month in Washington, D.C.

In addition, as we will see in the discussion of reactions in the U.S. House of Representatives, bills have been introduced to end the U.S. embargo of the island.

In short, the U.S. is doing everything it can to further the progress toward normalization of relations and reconciliation of the two countries.

II. U.S. Congress

The following analysis of the positions of senators and representatives on reconciliation obviously is incomplete since I was not able to conduct exhaustive research on all 100 senators and all 435 representatives. I also used my judgment to assign pending bills as favoring or opposing reconciliation and assumed, absent specific information to the contrary, that being a sponsor or cosponsor of a bill in one category would preclude that individual’s voting for some or all of the bills in the other category. Moreover, the named individual legislators may change their minds if and when any of these measures reach the chambers’ floors for votes. I earnestly entreat readers to provide comments with other information to correct or supplement this analysis.

A. U.S. Senate

Of the 100 Senators, 25 so far appear to support reconciliation while 27 do not. The other 48 Senators apparently have not yet taken positions on this major issue.

1. Favoring reconciliation

As of February 10, I was surprised to discover that the Senate does not have a bill to abolish the U.S. embargo of Cuba. Minnesota’s Senator Amy Klobuchar clearly has stated her intent to offer and support such a bill, but has not done so to date because she believes that the Senate first should vote on confirmation of an ambassador to Cuba, who has not yet been nominated by the President. Moreover, Cuba’s President Castro has made noises that abolishing the embargo should come before restoration of normal diplomatic relations. As a result, Klobuchar’s legislative strategy may have to be revised.

In any event, as of February 10, the Senate had only two measures on its agenda that are at least tangentially favorable to the recent U.S.-Cuba accord.

The first is S.299 (Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2015) offered by Senator Jeff Flake (Rep., AZ) with 13 cosponsors [1] It was referred to the Foreign Relations Committee.

The other is a proposed resolution (S.RES.26: Commending Pope Francis for his leadership in helping to secure the release of Alan Gross and for working with the Governments of the United States and Cuba to achieve a more positive relationship). It was offered by Senator Richard Durbin (Dem., IL) with 10 cosponsors, four of whom were not cosponsors of S.299 [2] The proposed resolution was referred to the Foreign Relations Committee.

In addition to these 18 senators, the following seven (for a total of 25) can also be regarded as supporters of reconciliation based upon statements on their official websites or other comments or actions mentioned in the press: Tammy Baldwin (Dem., WI), Chris Coons (Dem., DE), Al Franken (Dem., MN), Chris Murphy (Dem., CT), Rand Paul (Rep., KY), Pat Roberts (Rep., KS) and Harry Reid (Dem., NV).

Thus, at least 25 Senators are on record apparently supporting reconciliation with Cuba

2. Opposing reconciliation

As of February 10, the Senate had on its agenda one substantive bill relating to Cuba that can be seen as indirectly opposed to reconciliation.

S.165 (Detaining Terrorists To Protect America Act of 2015) would extend and enhance prohibitions and limitations with respect to the transfer or release of individuals detained at the U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.This bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee. It was offered by Senator Kelly Ayotte (Rep., NH) with 26 Republican cosponsors [3] One of the cosponsors, however, is Senator Jerry Moran, who was a cosponsor of S.299 and who spoke in favor of ending the embargo at the launch of the United States Agricultural Coalition for Cuba. Thus, I believe that only 25 of these cosponsors can be counted in the anti-reconciliation camp.

At least one other Senator belongs in this camp. Senator Robert Menendez (Dem., NJ), who is a Cuban-American, is vehemently opposed to reconciliation as are the other two Cuban-American Senators–Ted Cruz (Rep., TX) and Marco Rubio (Rep., FL), both of whom are cosponsors of S.165.

Thus, at least 27 Senators are on record apparently opposing reconciliation.

B. U.S. House of Representatives

There are at least 43 representatives favoring reconciliation while 52 do not. That leaves the other 340 representatives not accounted for.

1. Favoring reconciliation

As of February 10, the House had eight pending bills favorable to reconciliation with Cuba.

The following three seek to end the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

The leading one seems to be H.R.403 (Free Trade with Cuba Act) that was introduced by Representative Charles Rangel (Dem., NY) with 27 Democratic cosponsors [4] It has been referred for consideration to the House Foreign Affairs and six other committees.[5] The bill would end the embargo, and its section 2 would have Congress find that “Cuba is no longer a threat to the [U.S.] or Western Hemisphere;” the U.S. ” is using economic, cultural, academic, and scientific engagement to support its policy of promoting democratic and human rights reforms [in other Communist regimes];” and the U.S. “can best support democratic change in Cuba by promoting trade and commerce, travel, communications, and cultural, academic, and scientific exchanges.”
The other two similar bills to end the embargo are H.R.274 (United States-Cuba Normalization Act, 2015) by Rep. Bobby Rush (Dem., IL) without any cosponsors, and H.R.735 (To lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for other purposes) by Rep. Jose Serrano (Dem., NY) with Rep. Rangel as a cosponsor, both of whom are on the record as supporters of of H.R.403. These bills too were referred to the same seven committees for consideration.

Rep. Rangel on February 2nd also introduced H.R.635 (Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2015) to facilitate the export of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba, to remove impediments to the export to Cuba of medical devices and medicines, to allow travel to Cuba by U.S. legal residents, to establish an agricultural export promotion program with respect to Cuba. With 25 of the same Democratic cosponsors, the bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs and four other committees.

There are two bills to expand U.S. residents ability to travel to Cuba. Rep. Rangel on February 2nd introduced H.R.634 (Export Freedom to Cuba Act of 2015) with 25 of the same Democratic cosponsors of H.R.403 plus John Garamendi (Dem., CA) and Mark Pocan (Dem., WI). It has provisions for freedom to travel to Cuba for U.S. citizens and legal residents.It was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. A similar bill to expand U.S. citizens travel to Cuba (H.R.664: Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2015) was offered on February 2nd by Rep. Mark Sanford (Rep., SC) with 12 cosponsors.[6] It also was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

A more limited travel bill was introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (Dem., NY). It is H.R.738: To waive certain prohibitions with respect to nationals of Cuba coming to the United States to play organized professional baseball. Its sole cosponsor is Representative Rangel and was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

On January 27th Minnesota’s Representative Betty McCollum introduced H.R.570 (Stop Wasting Taxpayer Money on Cuba Broadcasting Act) to stop Radio Marti and Television Marti broadcasts to Cuba. McCollum was a cosponsor of H.R.403 while HR. 570 has no cosponsors. It was referred to the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees.

I am proud to say that all five Democratic Representatives from Minnesota by offering or cosponsoring bills appear to be in favor of this reconciliation. In addition, two of Minnesota’s three Republican Representatives have made statements indicating at least receptivity to favoring the reconciliation, and this analysis counts them as undecided. [7]

Our newest Representative Tom Emmer said, “By all accounts the Cuban people are worse off today than when [the embargo] started. So clearly that’s not working. And I’m supportive of engaging in diplomacy, starting to re-engage in diplomatic relations with Cuba, to begin that process to hopefully someday getting to normalize that relationship. But it’s two separate things. One, it’s diplomacy, and down the road is normalization.” In addition, as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Emmer focused on three issues in questioning Administration witnesses: reparations for Cubans who have been persecuted by the Castro regime, payments for U.S. interests that lost property to the regime and safe harbor of U.S. fugitives within Cuba. Emmer also said or suggested if certain conditions are met he could support ending the embargo.

Another Minnesota Republican Representative, Rep. Erik Paulsen, said, “We should be looking at opportunities to open up trade between the United States and Cuba so we can export more American goods and services. However, the President should have engaged Congress before making concessions to the Cuban government.” (Id.) It may also be significant that his district includes the headquarters of Cargill Incorporated, the leader of the United States Agricultural Coalition for Cuba

Thus, there are at least 40 Representatives who appear to be in favor of this reconciliation with differing levels of commitment.

2. Opposing reconciliation

There are two pending bills, both relating to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that can be seen as opposing reconciliation, as of February 10.

The first is H.R.654 (Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Protection Act). It was introduced by David Jolly (Rep., FL) with 36 Republican cosponsors, none of whom is from Minnesota. [8] It was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The other bill (H.R.401: Detaining Terrorists to Protect America Act of 2015) which would prohibit the release or transfer of certain Guantanamo Bay detainees and the construction or modification of any other facility to house such detainees. It was offered by Representative Jackie Walkorski (Rep., IN) with 29 Republican cosponsors, of whom 17 were not cosponsors of H.R.654. [9] It was referred to the Armed Services Committee.

Accordingly there are at least 54 Representatives on the record against reconciliation. Three of them are Cuban-Americans (Carlos Curbello, Mario Diaz–Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen) with the latter two being the most vocal in their persistent criticism of reconciliation. Another Cuban-American Representative (Albio Sires (Dem., NJ)) has not been an author or cosponsor of any of these bills, but his website includes a rejection of the President’s decisions to seek reconciliation with Cuba. [10]

III. Conclusion

As a supporter of reconciliation, I am anxious that this year both houses of Congress abolish the embargo and support other measures to promote that reconciliation. Therefore, I urge all supporters to say thank you to those legislators who already are on our side, to identify the “undecided” legislators and seek to persuade them to become supporters and to inform our fellow citizens of the important issues in this controversy and to seek to persuade them to be supporters.

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

[1] The 13 cosponsors of S.299 are the following: John Boozman (Rep., AR), Barbara Boxer (Dem, CA), Thomas Carper (Dem., DE), Susan Collins (Rep., ME), Richard Durbin (Dem., IL) ), Michael Enzi (Rep., WY), Amy Klobuchar (Dem., MN), Patrick Leahy (Dem., VT), Jerry Moran (Rep., KS), Jack Reed (Dem., RI), Debbie Stabenow (Dem., MI), Tom Udall (Dem., NM) and Sheldon Whitehouse (Dem., RI). Senator Moran also spoke in favor of ending the embargo at the launch of the United States Agricultural Coalition for Cuba.

[2] The four cosponsors of S.RES.26 who were not cosponsors of S.299 are the following: Sherrod Brown (Dem., OH), Benjamin Cardin (Dem., MD), Tim Kaine (Dem., VA) and Barbara Mikulski (Dem., MD).

[3] The 26 Republican cosponsors of S.165 are the following: John Barrasso (WY), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (AR), Richard Burr (NC). John Cornyn (TX), Tom Cotton (AR), Ted Cruz (TX), Joni Ernst (IA), Deb Fischer (NE), Lindsey Graham (SC), Orrin Hatch (UT), James Inhofe (OK), Johnny Isakson (GA), Ron Johnson (WI), Mark Kirk (IL), James Lankford (OK), Mike Lee ((UT), John McCain (AZ), Jerry Moran (KS), Pat Roberts (KS), Mike Rounds (SD), Jeff Sessions (AL), Dan Sullivan (AK), Thom Tillis (NC), Pat Toomey (PA) and Roger Wicker (MS).

[4] The 27 Democratic Representative cosponsors of H.R.403 are Karen Bass (CA), William Clay (Mo), Steve Cohen (TN), John Conyers, Jr. (MI), Keith Ellison (MN), Sam Farr (CA), Chaka Fattah (PA), Raul Griaiva (AZ), Jared Huffman (CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Eddie Johnson (TX), Henry Johnson (GA), Barbara Lee (CA), Betty McCollum (MN), Jim McDermott (WA), Gregory Meeks (NY), Gwen Moore (WI), Rick Nolan (MN), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Collin Peterson (MN), Jared Polis (CO), Janice Schakowsky (IL), Bennie Thompson (MS), Tim Walz (MN) and Maxine Waters (CA).

[5] A prior post listed the members of the seven House committees that have jurisdiction over different portions of the three bills to end the embargo.

[6] The 12 cosponsors of H.R.664 are Kathy Astor (Rep., FL), Jason Chaffetz (Rep., UT), Kevin Cramer (Rep., ND), Rosa DeLauro (Rep., CT), Sam Farr (Dem., CA), Barbara Lee (Dem., CA), Thomas Massie (Rep., KY), James McGovern (Dem., MA), Charles Rangel (Dem., NY), Chris Van Hollen, (Rep., MD), Nydia Velazquez (Dem., NY) and Peter Welch (Dem, VT).) Of this group, eight were not sponsors or cosponsors of H.R.403 (Chaffetz, Cramer, DeLauro, Massie, McGovern, Van Hollen, Velazquez and Welch). Cramer also announced his support for ending the embargo at the launch of the U.S. Agricultural Coalition for Cuba.

[7] Henry, Emmer on Cuba embargo: ‘Clearly that’s not working, MINNPOST (Feb. 6, 2015). The third Minnesota Republican Representative, John Kline, appeared to be less receptive to ending the embargo. He said he’s “not confident the Administration will follow through on its promises to hold the Castro dictatorship regime accountable, and I’m concerned about revisiting relations with Cuba until all Cubans enjoy a free democracy.”

[8] The 36 Republican cosponsors of H.R.654 are Gus Bilirakis (FL), Michael Burgess (TX), Bradley Byrne (AL), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Mike Coffman (CO), Carlos Curbello (FL), Rodney Davis (IL), Ron DeSantis (FL), Mario Diaz-Balert (FL), Bill Flores (TX), Trent Franks (AZ), Louie Gohmert (TX), Trey Gowdy (TN), Andy Harris (MD), Richard Hudson (NC), Duncan Hunter (CA), Darrell Issa (CA), Bill Johnson (OH), Jeff Miller (FL), Alexander Mooney (WV), Richard Nugent (FL), Gary Palmer (AL), Robert Pittenger (NC), Bill Posey (FL), Reid Ribble (WI), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Keith Rothfus (PA), Matt Salmon (AZ), Austin Scott (GA), Marlin Stutzman (IN), Jackie Walorski (IN), Randy Weber (TX), Roger Williams (TX), Joe Wilson (SC), Ted Yoho (FL) and Ryan Zinke (MT). Diaz-Balert and Ros-Lehtinen are Cuban-Americans who have been and are most vocal in their criticism of reconciliation. Rodney Davis, however, spoke in favor of ending the embargo at the launch of the United States Agricultural Coalition for Cuba and should not be viewed as completely hostile to reconciliation.

[9] The 29 Republican cosponsors of H.R.401 are Andy Barr (KY), Susan Brooks (IN), Bradley Byrne (AL), Mike Coffman (CO), Paul Cook (CA), Ander Crenshaw (FL), Trent Franks (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jaime Herrera Beutier (WA), Duncan Hunter (CA), Darrell Issa (CA). Sam Johnson (TX), Doug Lamborn (CO), Robert Latta (OH), Luke Messer (IN), Mick Mulvaney (IN), Richard Nugent (FL), Steven Pearce (NM), Robert Pittenger (NC), Ted Poe (TX), Mike Pompeo (KS), Todd Rokita (IN), Aaron Schock (IL), Austin Scott (GA), Christopher Smith (NJ), Brad Wenstrup (OH), Joe Wilson (SC), Robert Wittman (VA) and Ryan Zinke (MT). Of these cosponsors, 16 (Barr, Brooks, Herrera, Sam Johnson, Lamborn, Latta, Messer, Mulvaney, Pearce, Poe, Pompeo, Rokita, Schock, Smith, Wenstrup and Wittman) were not cosponsors of H.R.654.

[10] Hook, Exile Haunts Cuba-American Lawmakers, W.S.J. (Dec. 20-21, 2014).

Legal and Political Issues Regarding U.S. Rescinding Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”

Under the December 17^th U.S.-Cuba agreements, the U.S. is obligated to review whether the U.S. should rescind its designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” under U.S. law. This review is to be completed with a report to the President within six months (or by June 17, 2015). The President already has instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to “immediately launch” that review.

Commentary by the Department of State

The same day Secretary of State Kerry announced that he already “had asked my team to initiate a review of Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.”

The next day, December 18^th, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta S. Jacobson, held a press briefing on the many issues raised by the U.S.-Cuba rapproachment. She said the Bureau had “begun already – the process that we need to do under the law on the question of the state sponsor of terrorism listing, which has been in place since 1982.”

The Assistant Secretary added, “we’re not going to prejudge the outcome of the process we’ve just undertaken. . . . We’re going to undertake this review. We’re going to take it where the facts lead us on this. . . . At the end of that process, were Cuba to be removed from the list, there are a series of things that get taken off, some forms of sanction that get taken off. Although in Cuba’s case, I will say there are some overlapping . . . of things that may have been part of the state sponsor of terrorism list, and it may subsequently have been part of the Libertad Act or other legislation that deals with Cuba.”

In addition, she said,“[T]he law is fairly specific. . . . We have to review the record of Cuba over the last six months and ensure that they have not been participants or supported acts of international terrorism over the last six months. We have to look at whether they have renounced the use of terrorism. We have to look at their ratification of international instruments against terrorism. . . . I would have to look and check to see if there are other things that are in the law. . . . We then have to send any report that has conclusions on those subjects [to the President for his approval and transmittal] to the Congress, where it has to remain for 45 days. It’s an informing of Congress, not a request for approval or denial. It’s just an informing.”

Another point on the legislative process for the hypothetical recommended termination of such a designation was made at the November 17^th daily press briefing. The Departmental spokesperson said, “The relevant statutes also provide that . . . within 45 days after the receipt of the report from the President [deciding for rescission], the Congress would need to enact a joint resolution on the matter prohibiting this in order for it not to happen.” However, this statement is incomplete and, therefore, erroneous, as discussed below. While joint resolutions like bills have to be passed by both houses of Congress, they then have to be submitted to the president for signature or veto. In this hypothetical situation, any such joint resolution would be vetoed by the president.

The Merits of Past Designations of Cuba as a “State Sponsor“

This blog already has concluded that such designation is absurd, ridiculous, stupid and cowardly for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2011 (supplement), 2012, 2013, and 2013 (supplement). I believe that any rational person would come to the same conclusion as has the New York Times Editorial Board this October and December.

That, however, is not the end of the story.

Statute Regulating Rescission of a “State Sponsor” Designation

As Assistant Secretary Jacobson alluded to, under provisions of Section 6 (j) (4) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. § 2405(j)(4)) the following two alternative restrictions are imposed on any Administration’s rescission of any such designation.

First, the President may rescind such a designation by submitting, before the rescission takes effect, a report to Congress certifying that “(i) there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the government of the country concerned; [and] (ii) that government is not supporting acts of international terrorism; and (iii) that government has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.” This is not relevant for Cuba because there has not been “a fundamental change of leadership” in Cuba.

Second, and alternatively, the President may rescind such a designation by submitting to Congress, at least 45 days in advance, “a report justifying the rescission and certifying that (i) the government concerned has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding six-month period; and (ii) the government concerned has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.” Assistant Secretary Jacobson’s comments confirm that this is the relevant option for the Administration, and a future post will summarize concessions in the U.S.’ purported justifications for its prior designations that instead support the conclusion that Cuba ¨has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.¨

Such a report to Congress is merely an “informing” function, as the Assistant Secretary mentioned. But if Congress disagrees with the President’s decision to remove a country from the list, it could seek to block the rescission through a bill or a joint resolution.

Given the Republicans control of both houses of the Senate (54 of 100 with 44 Democrats and 2 Independents) and the House (247 to 188 Democrats) in the 114^th Congress (2015-2017) and the belligerent opposition of some Republicans like Senator Marco Rubio to the new U.S.-Cuba path to reconciliation, such a legislative attempt to block the removal, in my opinion, can be expected.

But any such attempt, by bill or joint resolution, has to be submitted to the president for approval or veto. Obama presumably would veto any such measure, thereby requiring under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution each house of Congress to obtain a two-thirds vote to override the veto. The Republicans by themselves will not have enough votes to override. If the Republicans had total party unity in such an effort, they would need 13 Democratic Senators and 43 Democratic Representatives to join them to overturn such a presidential veto. I think it unlikely they could obtain those extra votes. Let us hope they are not able to obtain such a super majority. We should lobby the Democratic Senators and Representatives (and some Republicans, like Senator Flake of Arizona) not to do so.

Conclusion

Stay tuned for future developments on the issue of rescinding the U.S. designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.” Be ready to lobby senators and representatives to resist any efforts to countermand any rescission.

Latest U.S. Report on Global Human Trafficking

On June 20, 2014, the U.S. Department of State released its Trafficking in Persons Report 2014 (TIP).

The Department asserts that along with the other annual reports, this TIP is “the world’s most comprehensive resource of governmental anti-human trafficking efforts and reflects the U.S. Government’s commitment to global leadership on this key human rights and law enforcement issue. It represents an updated, global look at the nature and scope of trafficking in persons and the broad range of government actions to confront and eliminate it. . . . The U.S. . . . uses the TIP Report to engage foreign governments in dialogues to advance anti-trafficking reforms and to combat trafficking and to target resources on prevention, protection and prosecution programs.”

On the release of this TIP, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “For years, we have known that this crime affects every country in the world, including ours. We’re not exempt. More than 20 million people, a conservative estimate, are victims of human trafficking. And the [U.S.] is the first to acknowledge that no government anywhere yet is doing enough. We’re trying. Some aren’t trying enough. Others are trying hard. And we all need to try harder and do more.”

Kerry also rejected criticism that the U.S.’ preparing and publishing such a report was an unjustified action. He said, “This is not an act of arrogance. We hold ourselves to the same standard. This is an act of conscience. It is a requirement as a matter of advocacy and as a matter of doing what is right.”

The last point was echoed by Luis CdeBaca, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large, State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. He said the U.S. itself has been included in this report since 2010 as “a matter of fairness to all of the other countries; if we’re going to hold them to these minimum standards, [then] . . . we needed to hold ourselves to them as well.” He added, “no country is doing a perfect job on the fight against human trafficking, and that includes the [U.S.]. We are all in this together.”

Criteria for U.S. Evaluation of Countries’ Trafficking Records

Under its authorizing legislation,[1] the State Department is required to assess the extent to which countries comply with the “minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking” set forth in the legislation. Those standards are the following:

(1)“The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking.”

(2)“For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or in which the victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the country should prescribe punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.”

(3)“For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the government of the country should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the offense.”

(4)“The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.”[2]

The statute also requires the State Department, based upon reliable information, to place countries into the following classes or tiers:

“Tier 1. Countries whose governments fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.”[3]

“Tier 2. Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards.”

“Tier 2 Watch list. Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards, and for which: a) the absolute number of victims of severe forms of trafficking is very significant or is significantly increasing; b) there is a failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking in persons from the previous year, including increased investigations, prosecution, and convictions of trafficking crimes, increased assistance to victims, and decreasing evidence of complicity in severe forms of trafficking by government officials; or c) the determination that a country is making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with minimum standards was based on commitments by the country to take additional steps over the next year.”

“Tier 3. Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.”[4] (Emphases in original.)

The U.S. Assessments of Countries Trafficking Records for 2013

The following table summarizes the number of countries in different areas of the world in the different tiers (Report at 58):

*Area*	*Tier 1*	*Tier 2*	*Tier 2Watch List***	*Tier 3*	*Special Case*	*Total*
Africa	00	26	17	10	01	54
Asia	03	20	09	06	00	38
Europe	21	16	02	00	00	39
Middle East	01	05	04	04	00	14
Pacific	02	03	02	01	00	08
Western Hemisphere	04[Canada, Chili, Nicaragua & U.S.]	19	10	02 [Cuba & Venezuela]	00	35
*Total*	31	89	44	23	01	*188*

The Report’s rankings are based upon “information from U.S. embassies, government officials, non-governmental and international organizations, published reports, news articles, academic studies, research trips to every region of the world, and information submitted to [a dedicated Department email address]. . . . The U.S. diplomatic posts and domestic agencies . . . [in turn conduct] thorough research that included meetings with a wide variety of government officials, local and international NGO representatives, officials of international organizations, journalists, academics, and survivors.” (Report at 37.)

Penalties for Tier 3 Countries

Under the authorizing statute, “governments of countries on Tier 3 may be subject to certain restrictions on bilateral assistance, whereby the U.S. government may withhold or withdraw non-humanitarian, non- trade-related foreign assistance. In addition, certain countries on Tier 3 may not receive funding for government employees’ participation in educational and cultural exchange programs . . . . [G]overnments subject to restrictions would also face U.S. opposition to assistance (except for humanitarian, trade-related, and certain development- related assistance) from international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.”(Report at 44.)

Conclusion

Because of this blogger’s special interest in Cuba, a subsequent post will analyze this Report’s assigning Cuba to Tier 3.

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

[1] Since 2000 the U.S. has had a series of federal statutes addressing efforts to combat human trafficking. The first such statute was the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 that required, in part, certain annual reports on trafficking. Subsequent federal statutes were the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003; the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005; the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2013 [Title XII of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013]. See 22 U.S.C., ch. 78.

[2] The statute defines “severe forms of trafficking in persons” and “serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.” (Report at 9.)

[3] According to the Report, “While Tier 1 is the highest ranking, it does not mean that a country has no human trafficking problem or that it is doing enough to address the problem. Rather, a Tier 1 ranking indicates that a government has acknowledged the existence of human trafficking, has made efforts to address the problem, and meets the [statute’s] . . . minimum standards. Each year, governments need to demonstrate appreciable progress in combating trafficking to maintain a Tier 1 ranking.” (Report at 40.)

[4] The statute “lists additional factors to determine whether a country should be on Tier 2 (or Tier 2 Watch List) versus Tier 3.” (Report at 43.)

Global Forced-Displacement Tops 50 Million

On June 20^th, the United Nations refugee agency (U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees or UNHCR) reported that the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced (IDPs) people was 51.2 million in 2013. This is the first time after World War II that the number has topped 50 million. (Articles about this report may be found in the New York Times and the Guardian.)[1]

This represented an increase of 6 million over the prior year due largely to the war in Syria and conflicts in the Central African Republic and South Sudan. Here is a graph showing the totals (with components), 1993-2013:

Here is another graph showing the largest sources of refugees in 2013:

Developing countries host 86% of the world’s refugees. The top five host countries are Pakistan, 1.6 million; Iran, 0.9 million; Lebanon, 0.9 million; Jordan, 0.6 million; and Turkey, o.6 million. The U.S. ranks 10th as a host country with 0.3 million.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, said,”We are seeing here the immense costs of not ending wars, of failing to resolve or prevent conflict. Peace is today dangerously in deficit. Humanitarians can help as a palliative, but political solutions are vitally needed. Without this, the alarming levels of conflict and the mass suffering that is reflected in these figures will continue.” He added, “The international community has to overcome its differences and find solutions to the conflicts of today in South Sudan, Syria, Central African Republic and elsewhere. Non-traditional donors need to step up alongside traditional donors.”

Serge Schmemann of the New York Times editorial board observed that the report indicates that half “the refugees are children; a growing number of these are on their own . . . . More than half of the 6.3 million refugees under the refugee agency’s care have been in exile for five years or more, testifying to conflicts that rage on and on.” Schmemann added that the “stunning figures offer a bitter counterpoint to the growing resistance in Europe and the United States to letting in immigrants and asylum seekers, and to the endless sterile blame-games about responsibility for the various conflicts.”

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

[1] A brief history of the UNHCR was provided in a prior post while another post discussed its report for 2010. Another post reviewed the international law of refugees and asylum seekers.

U.N. Human Rights Committee’s Hearings about U.S. Human Rights

As discussed in a prior post, in March 2014, the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee (the Committee) issued a negative evaluation of how the United States of America (U.S.) was implementing and complying with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR or Covenant), which is regarded as an important part of the International Bill of Rights. That prior post reviewed the background of the ICCPR and certain events preceding the Committee’s evaluation.

Now we look at the hearings that lead up to that negative evaluation. The evaluation itself will be the subject of another post.

The Committee’s Hearings[1]

On March 13 and 14, 2014, the Committee held sessions or hearings in Geneva, Switzerland regarding the U.S. report and other information.

The Committee’s questions focused on racial disparities in the criminal justice system; racial discrimination and profiling; police brutality; treatment of the homeless population; the death penalty; gun violence (including stand-your-ground laws); detention of immigrants; drone attacks; “enhanced interrogation techniques” including water boarding; National Security Agency surveillance; treatment of detainees held in Guantanamo; and transfers or renditions of detainees to third countries that practiced torture. Other covered issues were restrictions on voter registration and alleged mistreatment of mentally-ill and juvenile prisoners.

The Committee encouraged the U.S. to disclose a Senate investigative report on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interrogation program that reportedly involved torture. The U.S. delegation’s insistence that the NSA’s mass collection of data was lawful and subject to substantial oversight was disputed by non-governmental groups that attended the sessions.

One Committee member, Walter Kälin,[2] was especially critical in his comments and questions. Here a few of those comments:

He attacked the US government’s refusal to recognize the ICCPR’s mandate over its actions beyond its own borders. He said if the U.S. position were adopted universally, it would foster “impunity and lack of accountability” for human rights violations.
Kälin said, “One hundred and forty-four cases of people wrongfully convicted to death [in the U.S.] is a staggering number.” He pointed out the “disproportional representation of African Americans on death rows . . . ‘Discrimination is bad, but it is absolutely unacceptable when it leads to death.’”
Kälin pointed to another “‘staggering figure’ – that there are 470,000 crimes committed with firearms each year, including about 11,000 homicides. . . . [M]uch more needs to be done to curb gun violence.”

The Committee’s Chairperson, Sir Nigel Rodley of the United Kingdom,[3] addressed the issue of legal opinions in the George W. Bush Administration that provided a purported legal justification for the “enhanced interrogation” methods. Sir Nigel said, “When evidently seriously flawed legal opinions are issued which then are used as a cover for the committing of serious crimes, one wonders at what point the authors of such opinions may themselves have to be considered part of the criminal plan in the first place?” He added, “Of course we know that so far there has been impunity.”

Chairperson Rodley also zeroed in on the issue of extraterritorial application of the ICCPR. He said at the conclusion of the hearings, it “was difficult . . . to understand what principles underlay the [U.S.] non-acceptance of the extraterritorial application of the Covenant.” Indeed, he immediately followed this statement with his exposition of the Committee’s contrary view. In diplomatic language, Rodley was saying the U.S. position was absurd. Here is Sir Nigel’s exposition:

“The relevant applicable principles were the canons of interpretation contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, . . . [which] stated that a treaty should be interpreted in the light of its text, its context, and its object and purpose.”
“Consequently, it was difficult to see how the words of article 2 of the Covenant regarding a State party’s undertaking to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized therein [[4]] were only capable of interpretation as meaning that they applied solely to people who were both within the territory and subject to its jurisdiction. An ordinary, grammatical reading of the article in question supported the interpretation that it applied to everybody in either of the circumstances provided for.”
“Furthermore, the idea that the object and purpose of the treaty was met by saying that its application stopped at the frontier, whatever effective control any State might have over certain individuals, was one that was hardly consistent with the treaty’s object and purpose. That was the position not only of the Committee [5] but also of the International Court of Justice and very many States.”

Conclusion

The Committee’s negative comments at the hearings were a preview of its very critical comments about U.S. human rights in the Committee’s concluding report or “observations.” Another post will discuss that report.

———————————————————————————–

[1] This account of the hearings is based upon articles in the Guardian (March 13 and 14), the New York Times (March 13), Reuters (March 13), Al-Jazeera (March 14), the International Justice Resource Center and the Committee’s Summary Record (March 14). The archived webcasts of these sessions are available on the web.

[2] Walter Kälin is a preeminent Swiss humanitarian, constitutional lawyer, international human rights lawyer, activist, advocate, legal scholar and law professor. He has been published extensively on issues of human rights law, the law of internally displaced persons, refugee law and Swiss constitutional law. Since Since 2004, Kälin has served as the Representative of the United Nations’ Secretary-General on the Human Rights of InternallyDisplaced Persons, and In 1991-1992, he served as the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation. He holds degrees from the University of Bern (Dr. Jur.) and the Harvard Law School (LL.M.)

[3] Sir Nigel Rodley since 2001 has been a Committee member and since 2003 has served as its Vice Chair and now its Chair. He also is a Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists and a trustee of the NGO Freedom from Torture. Since 1990 he has taught law and human rights at the University of Essex and since 1994 has been its Professor of Law and Chair of the Human Rights Centre. Formerly he was Amnesty International’s Legal Advisor and Head of the Legal and Intergovernmental Organisations [sic] Office (1973–1990) and U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture (1993-2001). He is a founding member and former Executive Committee Vice Chairman of INTERRIGHTS (the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights). He is the author of books and articles about international human rights and holds degrees from the University of Leeds (LLB), New York University (LLM), Columbia University (LLM) and the University of Essex (PhD). In 1998 Queen Elizabeth awarded him the Knight of the British Empire (KBE) for his “services to human rights and international law.”

[4] The complete text of Article 2(1) of the ICCPR states: “Each State Party to the . . . [ICCPR] undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,property, birth or other status.”

[5] The Committee publishes “general comments” setting forth its interpretation of various provisions of the treaty, and its interpretation of Article 2(1) is set forth in General Comment No. 31 (The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant), which was issued on March 29, 2004.

Spanish Court Refuses To Apply New Amendment to Spain’s Universal Jurisdiction Statute

A prior post reviewed the approval on February 11, 2014, by Spain’s Congress of Deputies (Congreso de los Diputados), the lower house of the country’s bicameral legislature (los Cortes Generales), of an amendment of its statute on universal jurisdiction. Last week Spain’s Senate also approved that amendment, which then became law.

That post also predicted that the amendment would cause 12 pending cases under that statute to be dismissed. One of those 12 cases was an investigation of the conduct of three U.S. military personnel in the 2003 death of a Spanish journalist, Jose Couso, in Iraq.

On March 17^th, however, the Spanish High Court refused to dismiss that case according to reports in El Pais and the Wall Street Journal. Judge Santiago Pedraz Gómez decided to disregard the new amended law because, he said, it contradicts Spain’s obligations under the 1949 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The judge stated that the Geneva Convention obliges Spain to “prosecute the crime (search for people and make them appear) regardless of the perpetrators’ nationalities and wherever they may be.” Therefore, the court’s decision said,“The judge must refrain from applying this new rule. The rule of law requires the existence of independent bodies to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, by impartially applying standards that express the people’s will and control the activities of public authorities.”

The court also issued international arrest warrants for three U.S. military personnel who were not present in Spain.

An appeal of this decision is expected.

In the meantime, Spain’s main opposition political party (the Socialist Party) plans to appeal the constitutionality of this amendment to the country’s Constitutional Court. That Party apparently will argue that the amendment breached the right to “effective legal protection” and that the retroactivity of the amendment breached basic constitutional principles.