Senator Martinez on the Honduran Crisis

U.S. Senator Mel Martinez of Florida on the floor of the U.S. Senate today:

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the events in Honduras. The events that are taking place in Honduras right now are the unfortunate result of a silence from both the United States and the Inter-America community to the assault on Honduras' democratic institutions. It is difficult for Hondurans and other democrats within the region to understand the full significance of President Zelaya's expulsion from Honduras. Up until this point, there has not been any significant voice or action in opposition to the dismantling of free societies in Venezuela, Bolivia, and as Honduras was going down the same path, you might also add Nicaragua to that, to name only a few of the most visible cases.

It is also hard to explain why there was silence in the face of President Zelaya's earlier unconstitutional actions, especially the events that have appeared to precipitate his ousting: the storming of a military base to seize and distribute ballots for a referendum that previously had been declared unconstitutional by the Honduran Supreme Court. A fundamental tenet of democracy is the separation of powers. You've got a president in the executive branch and then you have a judicial branch of government as a coequal branch. And that branch of government told the president that the referendum he was seeking to have to extend his rule beyond the constitutional term was illegal, should not be done. He was undeterred and he was completely unrepentant as he sought to continue with his plan to have a referendum, even though the Congress, even though the judiciary, had already told him that that was in contravention of the Constitution of their country.

Where was the region's outrage of Hugo Chavez's support for Mr. Zelaya's unconstitutional actions in Honduras? Mr. Chavez supported Mr. Zelaya because they are kindred spirits. Because Mr. Chavez already had been able to usurp every institution of democracy within Venezuela and now rules as an autocrat, he wanted to have that same playbook applied to Honduras, as he has coached and shepherded the doings of the same thing in Bolivia and to some degree in Ecuador as well. And with Nicaragua now coming along. So the Honduran people decided this was not going to happen in their country and the people in the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court decided that it was not going to happen on their watch.

The region's silence toward the assault on democracy in Honduras followed a pattern of acquiescence to Chavez's dismantling of democratic institutions and civil liberties in Venezuela. For instance, the O.A.S. has said absolutely nothing about Chavez's closing of independent media, his manipulation of elections, his erosion of independent branches of government, and his usurping of the authority of local elected officials. Leaders like Chavez, Ortega, and Zelaya have cloaked themselves in the language of democracy when it's convenient for them. Yet, their actions ignore it when it doesn't further their personal ambitions. This situation was compounded by the United States' actions, including work behind the scenes to keep the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court from using the clearly legal means of presidential impeachment. Some of us have wondered why wasn't he impeached? Why didn't the Congress go ahead and impeach President Zelaya? The fact of the matter is that our embassy in Tegucigalpa counseled that they should not do that – that they should not do that, that the Hondurans should not use the tools of impeachment.

Having stood on the sidelines while Mr. Zelaya overstepped the nation's Constitution, the United States and the international community only speak now. Protecting a sitting president regardless of their illegal act sets a dangerous precedent. Instead, U.S. policy should be focused on supporting efforts that uphold the integrity of constitutional order and democratic institutions.

In fairness to the Obama Administration, this distorted policy is not new. Through advice from the State Department, former President George W. Bush was talked out of having the United States stand visibly with democratic advocates in Latin America. The advice was based on the belief by not making the United States an issue, this would allow the region to stand up for democratic activists. Unfortunately, no country or leader did so. And most significant of all, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States has sat idly by year after year, as democracy after democracy is being dismantled one piece at a time, one election at a time, one institution at a time, saying absolutely nothing.

The O.A.S. has a responsibility to condemn and sanction presidential abuses, not just abuses against presidents. Because of the O.A.S.'s failure to uphold the checks and balances within democracies, it has become an enabler of authoritarian leaders throughout the region. The result of this has been a signal of acceptance to anti-democratic actions and abandonment of those fighting for democracy in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and elsewhere.

This silence was compounded by recent repudiation of the application of the Inter-American Democratic Charter to the Cuban dictatorship. Ironically, it was in Honduras with Mr. Zelaya taking the leading role where the O.A.S. General Assembly decided against any clear democratic standards for Cuba retaking its seat in that organization. So here's what occurred: The Organization of American States - filled with the desire to reincorporate Cuba into the family of nations - completely ignoring that for 50 years Cuba has been a military dictatorship without even the vestiges of a free and fair election, and they invited Cuba to be readmitted without setting up a standard by which they would have to live. President Zelaya, with his partner Hugo Chavez, was leading the charge in saying, "Cuba should be welcome back and there should be no conditions." Those conditions of democratic rule are the very ones that he is now relying upon to try to get his presidency back. It is Mr. Zelaya now seeking the very protection of the democratic charter of the O.A.S. which he thinks is important to apply to him, but which he felt was unimportant to apply to the rights and opportunities of the Cuban people to try to claim a democratic future for themselves.

The crisis in Honduras stems from the failure of its leaders to live within constitutional boundaries and the earlier silence of the United States and the international community regarding the abuse of power by the Honduran executive. Tragically, the United States and the O.A.S. have put Honduras and the region in a position where democracy is the loser once again. The return of Mr. Zelaya will signal the approval of his unconstitutional act. If he is not allowed to return, then the unacceptable behavior of forcibly exiling a leader would be given tacit approval. This is what happens when principles are sacrificed for a policy only described as appeasement of authoritarians.

In the current crisis neither the United States nor other countries in the region or the international community should be taking sides in a constitutional dispute, but rather encouraging a resolution through dialogue among Hondurans. To this end, efforts should be focused on helping Hondurans form a reconciliation government that would include representatives not associated with either Zelaya's administration or the current interim government. The objective would be to keep Honduras on track to hold currently scheduled Presidential elections in November with the inauguration of a new president in January as mandated by the Honduran Constitution. The newly elected president with an electoral mandate then can decide how to deal with Mr. Zelaya and those involved in his ouster.

As the U.S. Senate takes up President Obama's nominees to key State Department positions in Latin America, it is time to question the acceptance by the United States and the Inter-American community of the sustained dismantling of democratic institutions and free societies by presidents seeking to consolidate personal power at any cost. This is the larger challenge in Latin America and Honduras is the latest symptom. The United States must no longer remain silent when democratic institutions are undermined. Any disruption of the constitutional order is unacceptable regardless of who commits it.

It would be well for us to remember that as we look forward to what may come next, the Presidential succession ought to be honored, however institutions of democracy also ought to be equally honored. Secretary of State Clinton met today at 1:00 with deposed President Zelaya and it appears that she is seeking to align the United States with the mediation that is about to be undertaken by President Óscar Arias – a Nobel Prize winning, well regarded man from Costa Rica. And that President Arias might take the opportunity to see how we can bring this process back together again. It seems to me the elections in Honduras ought to take place as scheduled and a new, democratically elected government ought to go forward. The real question is, will Mr. Zelaya be allowed to return to the Office of President? It seems to be fairly unanimous that all Honduran institutions oppose such an outcome. They do not want Mr. Zelaya back. They have seen the dark movie of what life can be like in a Cuba-type situation. They have seen the erosion of democracy with the complete erosion of freedoms so much made a dear part of what we in this country believe in that has taken place in Venezuela. They have seen the continued erosion of democratic values in Nicaragua and they don't want to see it happen in their country. And one can't blame them. It would only be fitting that they should find comfort by those of us in this country who not only value democracy for us but believe it should be shared by others around the world no matter their circumstances.

It isn't good enough to be elected democratically but then rule as a dictator and in the process of being an elected president, then move to erode all the institutions of democracy – the courts, the congresses, even the military as an institution; they ought to be respected. Their Independence ought to be valued. The playbook of Mr. Chavez, which is to dismantle the military leadership and bring in cronies of his, the efforts to then discredit the courts and bring in judges that he would also approve of – this has been the playbook by which Chavez has operated and the one that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to put into play.

So let's hope that President Arias from Costa Rica will be able to lead a mediation effort, that will bring together all the disparate groups. That there can be a free and fair election. And that there can be a resolution to this crisis of democracy. But let it also be a wake-up call to the rest of us who have sat silently by as this erosion of democracy takes place one country at a time in Latin America. We ought to say, "enough is enough." Let's stand for the rule of law. Let's stand for democracy not only on Election Day, but each and every day thereafter as we seek leaders that are elected democratically but govern democratically.

Mariela Castro's Freudian State of Mind

"I don't believe in the multiparty system. I believe in the diversity of opinions, in a participation where we all contribute elements. The multiparty system is a falsehood intended to make you believe that you have democracy. So far, the multiparty system has not guaranteed democracy."

Mariela Castro, daughter of dictator Raul Castro and director of the Cuba's National Center for Sexual Education (CENESEX), in an interview with the BBC.

How can you have diversity of political views and opinions if you do not allow diversity of political parties? Perhaps she means that in Cuba, while only the Communist Party is permitted, you can be Marxist, Bolshevik, Leninist, Engelian, Stalinist, Maoist and perhaps even Trotskyite, but that might land you in jail.

Famed Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud labeled such blatant contradictions, and self-deception, as a state of unconscious mental representations.

Or just delusion.

A Cuban Hero's Challenge to the Hemisphere

"I would like to ask all of the people, organizations and governments of the world that have condemned the coup in Honduras to, with the same outrage, condemn the Castro regime for the suffering it has caused the Cuban people for half a century.

I'm profoundly struck by the double standard of those people and governments that purport to be democrats, that rally against the commercial and financial embargo of the United States towards the [Cuban] communist regime, and that oppose policies of isolation towards Havana -- yet, now advocate a policy of isolation towards the new government in Honduras.

It is not possible to, on the one hand, condemn a policy of isolation against the Castro regime, and on the other, seek to isolate Honduras."

Jorge Luis García Pérez "Antúnez," Cuban pro-democracy leader and political prisoner, who served 17 years and 38 days, and was recently recognized with the 2009 Democracy Award -- in absentia -- by the National Endowment for Democracy.

Courtesy of Miscelaneas de Cuba.

Insulza, Malice or Hypocrisy?

Note the stark contrast in Organization of American States' ("OAS") Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza's remarks last week, "we are not going to Honduras to negotiate. We are going to Honduras to ask them to change what they have been doing."

Versus a month ago, "it should fall to Cubans themselves, through free and peaceful dialogue and without external interference, to find the most appropriate path to the wellbeing of the people."

And even more appalling, this week, Insulza stated that Fidel Castro was one of the legitimizing sources of the Cuban dictatorship, and stressed, "I say this with a great deal of respect and almost admiration for him [Fidel Castro]."

In other words, Insulza only supports "free and peaceful dialogue" with totalitarian dictatorships that do not allow the slightest hint of dissent, let alone "free and peaceful dialogue." However, anything less than a totalitarian dictatorship must unconditionally "change" without "negotiation."

At best, Insulza's "great deal of respect and almost admiration" for Castro has blinded his reason.

Important Lesson From Robert McNamara

Robert McNamara, who served as U.S. Secretary of Defense under Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, has died at 93.

McNamara is known mostly for his role in the Vietnam War, but he was also a key figure during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. faced the closest threat of nuclear attack in its history.

Looking for closure on some issues that troubled him regarding those days, McNamara traveled to Cuba in 2002 (for a conference on the 40th anniversary of the Missile Crisis), and directly queried Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

According to McNamara, " I asked him 3 questions. One - did you know there were nuclear warheads in Cuba? Two - would you have recommended to Khrushchev to use nuclear missiles in the event of an American invasion of Cuba? And three - what would have happened to Cuba? Castro said, 'One - I knew the missiles were there. Two- I would not *have* recommended it, I *did* recommend it! And three - we would have been totally obliterated." The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, 2003.

In other words, Fidel Castro recommended to Krushchev that he murder 10 million Americans and 7 million Cubans.

This is the man that some Members of the U.S. Congress want to have "business as usual" with?

Did the U.S. Embassy Prevent Zelaya's Legal Removal?

President Barack Obama has declared that the June 28th "coup" against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was "not legal." Frankly, President Obama is probably correct.

Keeping ideology aside, and as unpalatable as Zelaya is, it's tough to argue that what took place in Honduras did not usurp due process of law in some fashion. At the very least, it is clear that the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's arrest, but it did not order his forced expulsion from the country. As a result, Zelaya was forced out of the country in lieu of being able to mount a legal defense for the violations he was accused of -- perhaps Zelaya should count his blessings for that.

One can argue whether this fits the definition of a "coup," and whether it was political or military, but at this point those are semantics.

However, here is the million dollar question (and a follow-up).

In Friday's Washington Post, columnist Carlos Alberto Montaner writes:

"The United States Ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, an extremely competent diplomat, tried very hard to keep Honduras's Congress from ousting President Manuel Zelaya. After his arguments and pressures were exhausted, and faced with something that seemed inevitable, he did what he could: he sheltered the president's son at his residence to save him from any violent outcome."

If true, why did the U.S. Ambassador work very hard to keep the Honduran Congress from legally ousting Zelaya?

It seems this would create a policy inconsistency, for how can the U.S. condemn the illegal removal of Zelaya, when it allegedly worked very hard to prevent his legal removal?

Was U.S. policy for Zelaya not to be removed from office, legally or illegally? In other words, for Zelaya to stay in office and serve out his full term -- regardless of his violations of law -- at all costs?

The U.S. Congress should ask these questions of Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Tom Shannon, and U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens.

Quote of the Day

"We ask that the Organization of American States ("OAS") pay attention to all of the illegal activities that had been taking place [by the Zelaya government] in Honduras, not just at what took place on June 28th," declared the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez.

In reference to the aggressive remarks made recently by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Cardinal Rodriguez added, "the Honduran people are asking themselves why the OAS hasn't condemned the hostile threats being made [by Chavez] against our country."

Be Wary of Unconditional Talks

According to the New York Times, "the most important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment."

Immediately after, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared "I will go to the United Nations and will invite Obama to negotiations."

Sound familiar?

"With Obama, talks could happen anywhere he wants," Fidel Castro, December 5th, 2008.

When tyrants face mounting domestic pressure, they always seek talks or negotiations with democratic nations -- particularly the United States -- as a means of gaining legitimacy and demoralizing the opposition.

Fidel Ate All the Mangoes

Tragically, this is not a joke. The Cuban regime's Granma newspaper has reported that fruit trees "have become practically extinct on the island," which will cause massive shortages and dramatically increase prices.

Prior to Castro's Revolution, Cuba was a net exporter of fruits and a host of other agricultural commodities. There used to even be a popular saying, "a year of mangoes, a year of hunger," inferring that regardless of how bad things got, there would always be mangoes.

Well, either Fidel ate all the mangoes with his yogurt, or the regime has managed to graze the island of all its fruit trees -- in the same manner it has destroyed buildings, roads, the sugar industry, cultural patrimony and most importantly, human lives.

However, something tells me that the breakfast buffets for foreign tourists in Varadero will not be interrupted during by crisis. Unfortunately, ordinary Cubans are not allowed in to verify.

One Letter, A Whole New Meaning

"Courage, courage and more courage. The more you blog me, the more it grows."

Courtesy of Yoani Sanchez, Cuba's Generation Y blogger -- named in 2008 as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World.

The irony behind this picture is that the graffiti was actually a regime slogan saying, "...the more you blockade me...," in reference to the U.S. embargo. However, the letter "q" was defiantly tampered with to make it a "g," changing the word "bloqueo" (blockade) to "blogueo" (blog), and giving it a whole new meaning.

The Enemy of Freedom

From Michelle Malkin in Hot Air:

The true enemy of freedom is fear.

It's fear that makes people abandon the last, faded pretense of democracy, at the insistence of thugs and secret police. The lonely souls that yearn for freedom in a dictatorship do so in silence, because they fear that if they speak up, there will be more enforcers bearing down on them, than friends standing beside them. This is the terrible silence that America's voice was meant to shatter.

We know that we cannot liberate the rest of the world with military force. Our greatest weapon against tyranny is our courage. We know that freedom is not a special privilege reserved for people fortunate enough to have been born in the United States. We know it's not a peculiar quirk of Western culture, impractical or meaningless to the people of other nations. We know from the writings of Russian dissidents that the strong support of the American president helped them endure prison cells and exile camps.

We should never hesitate to roar our defiance, and contempt, in the faces of dictators. They have no more right to rule the people of Iran, Honduras, Cuba, or Venezuela than they did to rule Germany, Russia, or France. The language of freedom cannot be properly spoken by appeasers, manipulators, or international socialists. It is the speech of eagles and lions.

July 4th, Baseball (and Cuba)

"There are many Cuban baseball players in Cuba who would like to play in the Major Leagues. The problem is that we are not allowed to go back to Cuba then. Not everyone makes the decision to abandon his country, because they know that they won't be able to return. It's a very difficult decision."

- Aroldis Chapman, Cuban star pitcher, who defected this past Thursday in Holland.


EDITOR'S NOTE: The Cuban regime has a systemic policy of not allowing defectors to return to the island, even to visit their families, as punishment for fleeing. Additionally, their families in Cuba become social "pariahs," are removed from their jobs and are deprived access to rations and other basic staples. Chapman is the highest profile pitcher to defect since Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez. As you may recall, Hernandez was once hailed as the finest pitcher in modern Cuban history, but was banned from baseball for life by the Cuban regime for plotting to defect in 1996. Instead of accepting his punishment, Hernandez fled the island in a a thirty-foot fishing boat.

As we celebrate July 4th, it's thematic to extend our best wishes to Aroldis Chapman, as we eagerly await the day in which all Cubans can enjoy the unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" in their homeland without fear of repression or repercussions.

The Unalienable Rights of All Peoples

Today, in the United States of America, we celebrate the unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that our forefathers fought for.

Consistent with this spirit, we also stand in solidarity with those around the world that remain suffering under "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," for it too is "their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Chavez's Point of No Return

Free speech has been officially squandered in Venezuela.

The New York Times reports:

Diosdado Cabello, a top aide to President Hugo Chavez, said the government would revoke the licenses of 240 radio stations across the country. Mr. Chávez has also threatened to shut down Globovisión, a television network critical of his rule. Mr. Cabello cited incomplete tax payments and improper regulatory filings as reasons for canceling the licenses, but he also criticized the control of radio stations exercised by elite families, declaring a need to “democratize spectrum use.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For Chavez, to "democratize the spectrum use" means to transfer control of 240 diverse radio stations to 1 central authority, his own. In other words, a "democracy" of 1 -- a monocracy.

Normando Hernandez, An Inspiration

Cuba Keeps Ill Writer Jailed as Norway Awards Prize

by Jeremy Gerard*

A few weeks ago, Normando Hernandez Gonzalez got the kind of news that usually prompts cheers and emotion-filled toasts.

The Cuban journalist and poet had been awarded the annual Freedom of Expression award by the Norwegian Writers' Union. A delegation traveled from Oslo to the island nation to present the award, which included a prize of 100,000 kroner (about $15,775).

In this case, there were no hugs, no toast. Gonzalez, 39 and seriously ill, has been in prison for six years, except for a few stays in a Havana military hospital. Much of his incarceration has been spent at the notorious Kilo 7 in Camaguey.

Gonzalez is one of 29 journalists arrested in the "Black Spring" of March 2003, when 75 dissidents were convicted of "endangering the state's independence or territorial integrity," according to the Cuban government. Gonzalez, who doesn't share filmmaker Michael Moore's enthusiasm for Cuba's health-care system, published stories critical of the health, education and judicial agencies. His reward was a 25-year sentence.

Since then, seven of the dissident writers have been released, while conditions for Gonzalez and others have only worsened, according to his mother, Blanca, who lives in Miami, and his wife, Yarai Reyes, who lives in Vertientes, a small town not far from the prison. I've spoken with them several times over the past two years.

Second-Best

According to an international watchdog group, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Cuba is the world's second-leading jailer of journalists, after China.

Cuba's "imprisoned journalists live in inhumane conditions," the CPJ reported in a June 15 letter to leaders of the European Union.

"Their health is deteriorating, and their families are harassed by local authorities. To date, no international humanitarian organizations have visited any of the imprisoned Cuban journalists."

Courtesy of Norwegian writer Henrik Hovland and the New York chapter of International PEN, a group that monitors human- rights abuses of writers around the world, I was able to watch as Gonzalez received news of the Norwegian award.

Telephone Call

Hovland, accompanied by Norwegian Writers' Union President Anne Oterholm and an Oslo news crew, journeyed from Havana to the sugar-cane-growing region of Camaguey province. There in Vertientes, Yarai and her daughter, Daniela, live in a tiny spartan house.
It was wrenching to watch Daniela, who was celebrating her first birthday when her father was arrested, spring into action each time the phone rings, hoping it's him on one of the scheduled calls the authorities allow each month. His communications are strictly regulated.

When Gonzalez finally got through, Daniela reluctantly turned the phone over to the Norwegians, who informed him of the award and spoke briefly about his living conditions.

"He sees the prize as something for all political prisoners in Cuba," Hovland, 43, told me in a telephone interview from Oslo. "He talked about his health and the conditions in jail for political prisoners. He confirmed that his weight is down to 52 kilos (114 pounds).

"But you know, he told Yarai that he had a grin on his face when he got the news about the prize. He sounded happy."

On Monday, Alberto Gonzalez, a spokesman for the Cuban government, spoke to me from his office in Washington.

Real Criminal

"We do not consider him to be a journalist," he said of Normando Gonzalez. "The crimes he committed were very real, crimes linked to the American section in Havana." (Because the U.S. has no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, the countries maintain "Special Interests" sections in each other's capitals.)

"It's pretty common that the U.S. provides support by way of computers, libraries, et cetera to dissidents," I was told by Anna Kushner, a PEN staff member in New York who has had extensive contact with Normando Gonzalez's family.

The dissident writers, she added, never denied having contact with the Americans in Havana. And in a much-publicized gesture of support, Blanca Gonzalez was seated in the First Lady's box at President George Bush's 2008 State of the Union address.

The Cuban spokesman denied that any of the "Black Spring" prisoners had been singled out for harsh treatment.

None Died

"Our system in Cuba is to take care of all the people, including prisoners," he said. "You cannot find evidence of any prisoner who has died."

That, however, if true, may be more a matter of luck than of policy. While in prison, Normando Gonzalez has suffered with increasingly serious illnesses, including a severe intestinal disorder that prevents him from absorbing nutrition. He is, his mother says, in constant pain.

But he is also defiant, having refused to renounce his positions. That is almost certainly why he continues to suffer at Kilo 7, where the conditions are "subhuman," according to Martha Beatriz Roque, a prominent Cuban journalist.

The image that stays with me is the most human of all: A child pressing the telephone to her ear, listening to her father's voice and assuring him that she has been eating and has stopped crying -- both of which, Hovland told me, were untrue.

"Papi! Papi! Muchos besitos!" Daniela said: Many kisses, undoubtedly sweeter even than the accolades of good-willed friends from Oslo.

Jeremy Gerard is an editor for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.

20 Years After Ochoa: A Coup Hypothetical

Exactly 20 years ago this week -- from June 28th-July 10th, 1989 -- the Kafkaesque show trial of the most respected General in the Cuban Armed Forces, Arnaldo Ochoa Sanchez, was broadcast throughout Cuba.

General Ochoa was accused of corruption, dishonest use of economic resources, and narcotics trafficking. However, the ulterior motive behind his arrest was an attempt by the Castro brothers to deflect their own involvement in narcotics trafficking -- as detailed in this post -- and to squelch their obsessive fear of sedition by this highly respected military officer, who had the loyalty and support of an entire generation of Cuban soldiers that fought under his command from Yemen to Angola.

At dawn on July 12, 1989, General Ochoa was executed by firing squad at the military base known as "Tropas Especiales" in Baracoa, West Havana.

The 20th anniversary of this event that shook Cuba, in conjunction with a host of current events, leads to an unlikely, yet thematic, hypothetical:

If current elements within the Cuban Armed Forces were to plot and succeed in a coup against the Castro brothers, force them on a plane and send them to Costa Rica, what would be the reaction of the Organization of American States ("OAS") and its Member States?

Would the OAS begin a dialogue with the coup leaders of the Cuban Armed Forces and urge them to begin a process of democratization, or would it seek the immediate and unconditional return of the Castro brothers to Cuba and threaten the new regime with diplomatic and commercial sanctions?

How would the concept "non-intervention" be applied in this scenario? As the OAS currently applies it to the Castro brothers in Cuba, by pursuing partnership and dialogue; or as it is being applied to the current Honduran government, by aggressively demanding unconditional, non-negotiable change?

Czechs Criticize Coddling of Castro's Cuba

Czechs know what it's like to live under repressive regimes, they've suffered both the wrath of Nazism and Communism. As a result, they understand that traveling to Cuba and not visiting with the island's courageous pro-democracy movement would have been the equivalent of having traveled to the former Czechoslovakia and not visited with the pro-democracy, Charter 77 movement; or of currently traveling to Iran and not visiting with the opposition, Green Movement. Tangentially, note below how the European countries most critical of the Cuban dictatorship actually make an effort to provide aid to the Cuban people, while those that promote "dialogue" limit themselves to cocktail parties with the regime's elite.

Czech KDU head privately visits Cuba, criticizes EU's approach

Prague (CDK) - Cyril Svoboda, head of the Czech Christian Democrats (KDU-CSL) and former foreign minister, criticized the EU´s pragmatic approach to Havana on arrival from a private visit to Cuba today.

Svoboda set out for the trip in cooperation with the People in Need foundation on June 27, without any publicity.

He told journalists today that only the Czech, Dutch and Polish embassies distribute medicines to the Cuban people who need them.

The other EU countries unfortunately have preferred pragmatic policy to a free approach and a dialogue, Svoboda said.

One year ago, the EU decided to lift the sanctions it had imposed on Cuba in reaction to Cuban communist bodies' intervention against local dissidents in 2003.

The sanctions were formally suspended in 2005 and the EU representatives started visiting Cuba again.

Svoboda today said only few of them meet dissidents. On the contrary, they show cordial relations with the official representatives of Cuba, an undemocratic state, Svoboda said.

The Czech Republic was in the past opposed to the abolition of the sanctions, that was promoted mainly by Spain.

The Cuban communist regime seemed to be weakening after Fidel Castro´s brother Raul came to power a couple of years ago.

According to the latest reports by the People in Need foundation, the Cuban government has toughened repression against the local inhabitants again.

In Cuba, Svoboda met local dissidents whom he visited in their homes.

He told journalists he is sure of having been spied on.

"It is an exciting experience to be reminded of what the situation in the Czech Republic was like many years ago [before 1989], though in Cuba it is worse," Svoboda said.

He said European countries can feel ashamed for giving up the policy of defending human rights in Cuba.

Communist Monarchies

North Korea: A Communist Monarchy?

by Jeremy Paulson  
 
In 1792 the French Revolution began a trend against absolute monarchy that resulted in the decapitation, deportation, and removal of absolute monarchs all across the globe. That's the received wisdom, but received wisdom is based on broad assumptions that often fail upon close examination. Absolute monarchy is alive and well but wearing different clothes.
 
A convenient definition of monarchy can be found in the Miriam Webster online dictionary. It reads: a government having a hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute.
 
On an anthropological note hierarchical systems are rife through primate societies; whether gorilla dominant silverbacks or alpha prime chimpanzees there is a clear pattern in primate society toward single leadership. Unfortunately it usually fails to deliver societal success. Success depends on the personal qualities of the leader and heredity is usually not a good selection system. All too often hereditary leaders confuse authority with license or are more concerned with their own wealth, or political success rather than the overall success of the society.
 
So, you thought that monarchy was dead eh? Have a look at the following: "Papa Doc" Duvalier, President for Life of Haiti transferred power to his son, styled "Baby Doc" in 1971. In Syria, President Hafiz al-Assad died in 2000. Immediately following his death the constitution was amended to allow his 34 year old son, Bashar al-Assad, to succeed him. In Cuba, when Fidel Castro's infirmities made him unable to rule, his brother Raul took over. As you can see monarchy is alive, if not well but wearing clothes as varied as "President for Life" to "General Secretary."
 
Perhaps the most bitterly amusing example of monarchy is taking place right now in North Korea, a "Communist" government is in the process of transferring power to a third member of the Kim dynasty. How weird can this get a "Communist Dynasty?"
 
So when people tell you monarchy is dead, just direct them to these examples.
 
Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved.

Is Zelaya Linked to Narcotics Trafficking?

Washington, DC – Following please find the text of a letter sent today by Congressmen Thad McCotter (R-MI), Connie Mack (R-FL), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) to President Obama, seeking his explicit personal assurances that U.S. intelligence or law enforcement agencies do not have information implicating officials of the Honduran administration of Manuel Zelaya, including Mr. Zelaya himself, in the transit of illegal narcotics through Honduran territory or in any other ties to drug trafficking.

Reports have linked Zelaya to cocaine trafficking:

"We write to seek your explicit personal assurances that U.S. intelligence or law enforcement agencies have no information implicating officials of the Honduran administration of Manuel Zelaya, including Mr. Zelaya himself, in the transit of illegal narcotics through Honduran territory or in any other ties to drug trafficking.

On June 30, the Associated Press published an accusation by a current Honduran official that Mr. Zelaya's government "allowed tons of cocaine to be flown into the Central American country on its way to the United States." Honduran Foreign Minister Enrique Ortez is quoted saying, "Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate authorities and bring thousands of pounds ... and packages of money that are the fruit of drug trafficking…. We have proof of all of this. Neighboring governments have it. The DEA has it."

In light of your personal, public demands that Mr. Zelaya should be restored to power, we believe that you must assume personal responsibility for ensuring that our government is not aware of any information that suggests that Mr. Zelaya or his associates have been complicit in the trafficking of cocaine or any other illegal substances to the United States.

We are certain that the American people would be shocked to discover that the United States government is playing or has played any role in restoring to power any official who U.S. intelligence or law enforcement agencies suspect of any ties to the deadly illicit drug trade.

Obviously it is always wrong for the military to displace a democratically elected president. In this case, the situation is much more complicated because the political leader in question was in the process of violating the Constitution of his country in order to maintain personal power. Furthermore, Mr. Zelaya was replaced not by a general but by an elected member of the parliament, who was selected by a vote of parliamentarians. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as well as many political people in Mr. Zelaya's own circle, were opposed to his efforts to eliminate certain constitutional restrictions on his presidency. These complications should suggest that the United States be cautious and deliberate in response, as compared to challenges in other countries where dictatorial regimes brutally repress democratic elements. In this case the military action that was taken was done so to ensure the constitutional and democratic process in Honduras, rather than destroy it."

Make Sure You're Sitting Down

From the Cuban regime's official news agency (the only one permitted on the island):

HAVANA, Cuba, (acn) The abundant information of the international mass media on the coup in Honduras is being blocked by the de facto government, causing the Honduran population to remain misinformed.

As a reminder, Reporters Without Borders' 2008 Press Freedom Index ranks Cuba 169 out of 173 countries, squeaking by North Korea and Burma, regarding the ability of independent journalists to practice their trade free of repression, and for the ability of the nation's citizens to access information free of government censorship.

Additionally, the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented that Cuba is the country with the second highest number -- in gross terms -- of imprisoned journalists in the world, only behind China, whose population is over 100 times that of Cuba.

"A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future."
- Author Unknown

An Important Challenge for the OAS

Yesterday, the Organization of American States ("OAS") vociferously advocated "the importance of strict adherence to and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms" in its Resolution to the Political Crisis in Honduras, AG/RES 1, (XXXVII-E/09).

Consistent with this declaration, and to ensure credibility, it would be imperative that the OAS and its Member States simultaneously proceed to vociferously challenge the egregious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Castro regime in Cuba.

Furthermore, if the Honduran government is suspended from the OAS for violating the terms of the Inter-American Democratic Charter ("Charter"), the OAS should immediately proceed to revoke the June 3rd resolution that terminated Cuba's suspension from the regional body, and issue a new resolution specifically enumerating the terms of the Charter -- of which the Cuban regime must strictly adhere to prior to readmission.

Finally, the OAS should press all of the Members States that are advocating for diplomatic and commercial sanctions against the non-democratic government of Honduras to extend similar sanctions towards the only other non-democratically elected government in the hemisphere, the Castro's Cuba.

Alternatively, the OAS building in Washington, D.C. would make an ideal location for the Smithsonian's upcoming Latino Museum.

Quote of the Day

"Some of the very same regional players now urging a united front on behalf of democracy in Honduras are the same leaders who in recent months have been eager to embrace Cuba and give the tropical gulag nation a pass on its lack of democracy and basic civil liberties, citing explicit principles of nonintervention and implicit nostalgia for anti-gringo revolutionary lore."
 
- Andrés Martinez, Director, Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program, New America Foundation

For the Statistically Inclined

Vote-riggers of the world beware!

In today's Washington Post, two young professors at New York University ("NYU") use statistics to show how Iran's election results were likely altered behind closed doors.

Can't wait until Raul Castro posts his 99% victory margin.

Here's how:

"We'll concentrate on vote counts -- the number of votes received by different candidates in different provinces -- and in particular the last and second-to-last digits of these numbers. For example, if a candidate received 14,579 votes in a province (Mr. Karroubi's actual vote count in Isfahan), we'll focus on digits 7 and 9.

This may seem strange, because these digits usually don't change who wins. In fact, last digits in a fair election don't tell us anything about the candidates, the make-up of the electorate or the context of the election. They are random noise in the sense that a fair vote count is as likely to end in 1 as it is to end in 2, 3, 4, or any other numeral. But that's exactly why they can serve as a litmus test for election fraud. For example, an election in which a majority of provincial vote counts ended in 5 would surely raise red flags.

Why would fraudulent numbers look any different? The reason is that humans are bad at making up numbers. Cognitive psychologists have found that study participants in lab experiments asked to write sequences of random digits will tend to select some digits more frequently than others.

So what can we make of Iran's election results? We used the results released by the Ministry of the Interior and published on the web site of Press TV, a news channel funded by Iran's government. The ministry provided data for 29 provinces, and we examined the number of votes each of the four main candidates -- Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, Karroubi and Mohsen Rezai -- is reported to have received in each of the provinces -- a total of 116 numbers.

The numbers look suspicious. We find too many 7s and not enough 5s in the last digit. We expect each digit (0, 1, 2, and so on) to appear at the end of 10 percent of the vote counts. But in Iran's provincial results, the digit 7 appears 17 percent of the time, and only 4 percent of the results end in the number 5. Two such departures from the average -- a spike of 17 percent or more in one digit and a drop to 4 percent or less in another -- are extremely unlikely. Fewer than four in a hundred non-fraudulent elections would produce such numbers.

As a point of comparison, we can analyze the state-by-state vote counts for John McCain and Barack Obama in last year's U.S. presidential election. The frequencies of last digits in these election returns never rise above 14 percent or fall below 6 percent, a pattern we would expect to see in seventy out of a hundred fair elections.

But that's not all. Psychologists have also found that humans have trouble generating non-adjacent digits (such as 64 or 17, as opposed to 23) as frequently as one would expect in a sequence of random numbers. To check for deviations of this type, we examined the pairs of last and second-to-last digits in Iran's vote counts. On average, if the results had not been manipulated, 70 percent of these pairs should consist of distinct, non-adjacent digits.

Not so in the data from Iran: Only 62 percent of the pairs contain non-adjacent digits. This may not sound so different from 70 percent, but the probability that a fair election would produce a difference this large is less than 4.2 percent. And while our first test -- variation in last-digit frequencies -- suggests that Rezai's vote counts are the most irregular, the lack of non-adjacent digits is most striking in the results reported for Ahmadinejad.

Each of these two tests provides strong evidence that the numbers released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior were manipulated. But taken together, they leave very little room for reasonable doubt. The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than .005. In other words, a bet that the numbers are clean is a one in two-hundred long shot.

Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco, Ph.D. candidates in political science at Columbia University, will be assistant professors in New York University's Wilf Family Department of Politics this fall.

Castronomics 101

The Castro regime revealed its new economic policy this week:

Deprive young Cubans of any entrepreneurial spirit or initiative, while heavily taxing elderly women selling trinkets to Canadian tourists on "daytrips" to Old Havana.

One exception, young Cuban men and women can continue to engage in one entrepreneurial activity, prostitution, as long as it keeps the foreign tourists coming back for more.

HAVANA, (Frank Correa, Cubanet) – The Cuban government has started to issue new licenses for sales in Havana by the self-employed, provided they’ve reached what Cubans call the “third stage” of life.

However, the government hasn’t specified what the minimum age is. Some people near 50 have been reported requesting the licenses, but it is not known if they received therm.

The vendors are limited to selling artisan works and items made at home. They must give the government 20 percent of their income from the sales.

Are Perez Roque and Lage in Costa Rica?

On March 3rd of this year, the Castro brothers purged two of the youngest members of their Council of Ministers, Felipe Perez Roque, who was Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Carlos Lage, who was the Economics "Czar."

For years, these two figures had been the "darlings" of the international media and Cuba "experts," who had vaticinated that they were the new generation, the future leaders, of the Cuban regime.

Also, purged was Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Fernando Remirez de Estenoz, who was lauded in Washington diplomatic and social circles during his tenure as head of the Cuban Interests Section during the Elian Gonzalez saga.

Over the weekend, Spain's El Pais documented the drama behind the apparent disloyalty and purging of these officials by the Castro brothers, which was full of intrigue and suspense, including operations by Spanish intelligence; reaction by Cuban counter-intelligence; and even lavish parties on the rooftops of Havana's finest hotels.

However, watching Raul Castro yesterday, as he lambasted the "putschist" coup by the Honduran military that swept up President Manuel Zelaya at night and put him on a plane to Costa Rica, merits the question of Castro:

Where is Lage and Perez Roque?

For years, not one news story came out of Havana that didn't mention these individuals in some capacity.

So, why hasn't anyone sought their whereabouts?

Essentially, two senior Cuban officials were vanished from the face of the earth with absolutely no national or international accountability whatsoever.

No one seems to know (or care), but it's highly unlikely they were sent to Costa Rica.