The Bumbling Diplomat

During an interview with Spain's RTVE, Castro's former Ambassador to the European Union (EU), Carlos Alzugaray Treto, discussed the EU's resolution condemning the Cuban regime for the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo.

It's fascinating how Amb. Alzugaray seeks to defend totalitarianism and, not surprisingly, how he completely contradicts himself.

Q.: The [EU] resolution also expresses firm support for the dissident movement and condemns the detention of political prisoners.

A.: I wonder if a country has the right to judge another country and tell it that it has political prisoners and must release them. [...] What is not possible is that the [EU's] common stance is based on the assumption that in Cuba there is a problem of democracy and human rights and that it has to improve. There is no dissidence in Cuba. A majority of people support the government. Others don't support the government but uphold the system. Then there are those who call themselves dissidents, who are people whose activity is supported by the United States.

Q.: [Dissident Guillermo] Fariñas has said the regime wants to let him die. In Zapata's case, he died after a long hunger strike. Don't you think the Cuban government should have acted differently in both these cases?

A.: Forced feeding is the subject of much debate, because it is done by violating the right of a person to commit suicide. Almost no one supports hunger strikes; the dissidents themselves say they don't like them. No government is going to release prisoners who were sentenced by the courts just because they stage a hunger strike.

Huh?

If there are no dissidents in Cuba (as Amb. Alzugaray purports), how could they not "support" or "like" hunger strikes?

Furthermore, if a majority of Cubans "support the government," why not let them express their "support" through an internationally-supervised referendum or pluralistic election?