Human Rights
Human Rights in Perspective
‘Human rights’ is a term which does not define itself - it must be defined in the context of who is using the term and why. Often ‘human rights’ does not mean human rights - it is frequently a smokescreen or a political contrivance. The Cubans have a very wide definition of what constitutes a human right while the US or other countries of the developed world have a much narrower definition.
Both approaches to establishing a definition of human rights cannot be the definitive definition which is why the term must always be defined in context. Failure to do this places the observer or commentator in one camp or another but always taking sides with one side or the other. This is all very well if you know whose side a particular commentator is on. For instance, it will be clear to the reader of this pamphlet that there will be at the very least a great deal of sympathy for the Cuban (or broad) definition of human rights. It is a document produced by Cuba Support Group and this is clear to the reader who we assume is alerted by our openness to the possibility of bias.
But, when the approach is supposed to be neutral and objective as in a daily newspaper, for instance, we face a different problem. First question is - is it objective? If so, who or what has influenced that objectivity? Has the reporter approached the subject from a broad or narrow perspective? And if the developed world normally takes a narrow approach to analysing human rights then can we not expect that the reporters and observers of that background will almost invariably take a similar approach.
In search of a better world, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations proclaims to seek the creation of conditions of economic, judicial, political and social equality for all human beings. It maintains that every person shall have the right to work and that they will be protected against unemployment. Every person has a right to an adequate standard of living that will provide for that person and family’s health, nutrition, clothing, housing, medical and social care. The Declaration necessitates that at a political level all governments must establish a truly democratic system complete with social equality, popular empowerment and the representation of all citizens’ rights.
We cannot prioritise some human rights as being more important than others. All of them deserve the same respect. Equally , we cannot ignore some issues in favour of others as it suits the situation. Most importantly we should not abuse the issue of human rights itself to justify a particular end.
In Ireland we tend to highlight and prioritise certain abuses from the tableaux of world misery and frequently our emphasis betrays where our sympathies lie. In a world characterised by turmoil, violence and suffering human rights are becoming more and more politicised and manipulated as a means of deflecting attention away from wars, the arms industry, hunger, the rampage of curable disease and the unemployment epidemic in the North.
Now governments of the North sit in judgment of the countries of the South, monitoring particular and selective rights while conveniently ignoring the detrimental effects of the policies they have implemented on the human rights of whole populations via such institutions as the World Bank, the IMF and through trade restrictions or embargos or blockades for instance. Or, as in the case of Cuba, accusing Cuba of violations of human rights while standing idly by as the US tries to starve a nation into submission and only responding to that situation when the US went too far and interfered in our domestics laws and our right to trade.
National Security, Emergency Legislation and Restriction of Expression
Whenever a nation feels threatened by either internal or external forces it tends to react in a particular way in order to defend its stability or its sovereignty. International conventions
such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights make provision for countries to enact and enforce emergency powers in response to real (or imagined) threats to the state. In 1939 the Irish state reacted to the IRA by introducing the Emergency Powers Act. This allowed the state to intern those whom it was believed were involved with the IRA. This Act was maintained until 1994. When it was finally repealed in 1994, the state decided to maintain some of its provisions, including the Special Criminal Court which allows people to be tried without the benefit of a jury.
In Cuba, those who are perceived to be part of the US attempt to destabilise the government are detained and sometimes imprisoned. The Cuban government has enacted laws on security in response to a very real and sustained threat from the US and there is no doubt that these laws restrict individual freedoms. Speaking at the UN General Assembly in 1996, Carlos Lage, Vice-President of the Cuba National Assembly, has this to say on the issue of people sentenced under Cuban law for activities against the state: "It is true, we admit it, and it cannot be otherwise, because our people are ready to defend their independence and their achievements at all costs. No one can force a country to live under siege and require it to govern its affairs as if it belonged in the happiest and most peaceful of all worlds. Some say that we should change to solve this conflict but the term "blockade" and "changes" are opposite and contradict one another."
In order for any country to fulfill its economic and political role on the international stage the government of that country must have a certain amount of prestige and credibility. Realising this fact it is easier to see why the US insists on depicting Cuba as a systematic violator of human rights. As far as Cuba is concerned all attempts to destroy its image and internal stability are an attack on Cuban security.
While Cuba’s national security is under threat from external forces it will maintain its somewhat severe security measures with regard to freedom of expression. Cuba has challenged the US to lift its blockade of the island guaranteeing that if it does so Cuba would step down its security measures. This suggestion is a lot more constructive than the US self righteously condemning alleged human rights abuses while systematically denying food, medicine and basic supplies to a whole nation and deliberately endangering the social advances achieved in Cuba.
In the US one and a half million people are in jail, 3,000 are on Death Row, nearly 50 million live in poverty, there is a huge black underclass, 38 states practice the death penalty, police brutality is common and well documented and often racist. Given these facts, is the US a credible authority to speak on human rights in any country except its own?
Each year the US State Department publishes a study of ‘human rights’ region by region and country by country. The 1997 report commented on Ireland, for instance, and referred to our treatment of travellers.
The report is quite comprehensive and certainly provides an overview of situations in many countries under various headings. The language and the positive or negative bias to particular situations and particular countries is a study in itself. One of the most interesting things about the report is that the US itself is not reported on. Indeed, it is quite difficult to get information on the human rights situation in the US from any source so even a self-analysis, within its own terms of refernce, would have been useful.
On the issue of selectivity it is worth studying references to Nicaragua in the report. It states that there has been an improvement in the human rights situation in Nicaragua. An improvement? Nicaragua is now one of the poorest countries in the region; education and health programmes have been abandoned and land reforms have been reversed but this report can declare an improvement in human rights! How could the report do otherwise, Nicaragua is where it is today through the dictates of US foreign policy and military and economic intervention.
It is not only the references to particular countries which need analysis. The State Department document also broadens the range of issues which constitute human rights while also remaining highly selective. It offers no explanation or insight as to why the issue of human rights is used as a stick to continuously beat Cuba with while the US ignores its own documented instances of extreme and sustained and continuing human rights violations in any number of friendly countries.
Access to health facilities, education, housing, or even more abstract issues such as sovereignty , dignity and peace do not figure in this world wide (except the US) assessment of human rights.
Case Study: Freedom of expression in Ireland
When President Clinton visited Ireland in November 1995, a number of protests were staged drawing attention to various aspects of US foreign policy including the blockade of Cuba, the arms trade, etc. In Camden Street in Dublin while Clinton was in Cassidy’s pub, two demonstrators carrying a Cuban flag and a banner which declared "Talking Peace, Waging War US - Largest Exporter or Arms and Military Technology" were attached by the Special Branch. The poles of the banner were broken and after a struggle the banner and flag were confiscated. The two demonstrators (this was a spontaneous demonstration following the main demonstration) were attached by the Special Branch less than three minutes after commencing their protest. Neither the banner nor the flag were returned for six months. Earlier the same day, a lone protester in College Green held up a banner which declared "End the US Blockade of Cuba". The banner was taken from him within minutes under the Public Order Act. It has never been returned. Similar indidents occured on subsequent Clinton visits.
Complaints to the Garda Complaints Board were eventually disallowed on technicalities and a request for a meeting with the Minister for Justice to discuss these infringements of civil liberties and human rights remains unanswered.
Ireland did not feature as a violator of human rights in the EU report to the UN and these incidents did not feature in the US State Department report on Ireland.
What has Ireland to say on the matter?
The short answer is nothing. In researching material for this study we sought an Irish government statement on human rights in Cuba. We were offered various Amnesty International reports and the statement delivered to the 51st Session of the UN General Assembly by Mr Michael Hoey, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ireland on behalf of the European Union on issues of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
However, from reports of statements by Mr John Bruton TD during the Irish Presidency of the European Union it appears that Ireland is critical of the human rights and democratic situation in Cuba and has stated those concerns during the EU Presidency.
The following are the entire extracts from the above EU report to the UN relating to two countries - Cuba, with which Ireland (at that time) did not have diplomatic relations, and Saudi Arabia, with which Ireland did have diplomatic relations:
CUBA
"Cuba continues to resist full implementation of civil and political rights and therefore continues to deny to its people full enjoyment of their human rights. This persistence will continue to hamper Cuban efforts at further implementation of economic and social reforms.
" The European Union calls upon Cuba to begin a process leading rapidly to the establishment of democracy. We call for the unconditional release of all prisoners detained for their political views or their actions to promote human rights. In particular we urge an end to the harassment of groups, such as Concilio Cubano, who seek to promote and protect human rights. The European Union regrets the continuous refusal by Cuba to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and urges Cuba work with the Rapporteur and other human rights mechanisms and procedures of the United Nations".
SAUDI ARABIA
"The overall human rights situation in Saudi Arabia is of grave concern to the EU. In particular we deplore continuing denials of civil and political rights as well as violations of the human rights of women. We continue to be concerned at shortcomings in the administration of justice in Saudi Arabia and at reports of torture of detainees and of other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and detention without trial. They continue to be serious obstacles to the enjoyment of freedom of religion and expression. We call upon the Saudi authorities to cooperate fully with all human rights bodies of the UN"
From these descriptions we can see that Saudi Arabia is a serious offender of human rights. Yet, it is Cuba that people seem to know most about. Why is it that most people in Ireland would be able to describe Cuba as a one-party state which is communist and which denies its people human rights yet know little or nothing about a country which has no political parties, no elections, no freedom of expression, where women have virtually no rights, which practices torture and detention without trial and which executed at least sixty five people in 1996?
Why is Saudi Arabia not blockaded? Why is it not continuously vilified and demonised? Why do we not hear public statements about Saudi Arabia from the Irish Government? Or the Irish media? Can it be that Saudi Arabia is a ally of the US? Can it be that Saudi Arabia has oil? Can it be that it just does not suit particular interests?
We make this comparison not to simply compare the two situations and say well, Cuba has a much better record than Saudi Arabia. It is more important to understand that when reports on human rights by the European Union or even the US State Department are read in their entirety (which very few people do) the broader picture becomes clearer. And when the overall assessment of the reports are made, even using the very narrowest definition of human rights, Cuba scarcely figures. If we use a broader definition - access to education, health, etc - as a means of assessment of the overall situation on human rights then few will disagree that Cuba moves up there with the top of the class.
For comparison purposes see the State Department reports on any country or pick from any of the following: Zaire, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, Colombia, Honduras, Paraguay, Germany, Britain, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria or look at the situation in any of the war zones anywhere in the world.
Cuba in Context
Cuba is a Third World developing country whose very existence is under threat from its powerful neighbour. Monstrous inequality is what inspired the Cuban Revolution. The people rose up to ensure that neither they nor their families would ever have to endure such degradations again. The government that evolved from the revolution understood that recognition of and respect for human dignity was a crucial perquisites for a society based on equality. The US interpreted these developments as a threat and has been actively attempting to destroy them and recapture their previous control. We put forward these facts not to excuse any alleged human rights violations on Cuba’s part but to offer a context from which to understand the issue of human rights in Cuba.
Cuba is unique in the developing world in that its people have chosen freely to advance and improve upon the socialist system they adopted over 30 years ago. If all human rights are of equal importance and deserve equal respect then societies where all citizens can expect real equality and well being are to be commended. It is only when a society can translate such aspirations into action that it can be said that it is promoting and protecting the human rights of its citizens. Cuba’s record is beyond reproach when it comes to such actions. Indeed their reputation ranks them among the more developed countries and their achievements are the aspiration of their neighbours.
Respect for human rights can be measured by the way a society treats its children for instance. If you compare Cuba’s achievements with other third world countries then it is impossible to speak of a Cuban culture characterised by oppression and violence.
All education is free and compulsory through to the third year of secondary school.
Everyone has access to free medical care.
The plague of child prostitution, which is spreading in other third World countries, is non-existant in Cuba.
Infant mortality rate in Latin American is often more than 60 per 1000 births, in Cuba it is 7.9 per 1000 live births. In real terms this figure means that the lives of thousands of babies are saved each year.
Adults can expect to live to at least 75 years.
Everyone has been given the possibility to work and all citizens enjoy social protection.
In Cuba everyone has the opportunity to develop intellectually and physically without any discrimination based on wealth, sex or race. The social and economic developments since the revolution have instigated a sense of solidarity among the people. They feel that they are a part of their society which gives them a sense of dignity in who they are and in their homeland. It is this faith, pride and solidarity in themselves and their government which has foiled all attempts to destroy the society they have succeeded in building.
Lest we forget, Cuba is continually under threat from the US. Everyday, US trained and armed groups, such as Alpha 66, are trained to carry out acts of aggression against Cuba. If there is any abuse of human rights in Cuba it would have to be that of the right to dissent. The treatment of those who speak out against the prevailing ethos is a reaction against the sustained threats from outside to crush Cuba. If this explains the situation it does not necessarily excuse it. But, the Cuban government readily acknowledges that in common with most other countries in the world it needs to improve its human rights situation - under both the narrow and broad definitions - and continues to work towards that end.
What Cuba deserves, at the very least, is a critical, objective and comparative assessment of it record taking into account both its achievements and its failures and its demonstrated desire to address its shortcomings. Flinging selective, politically motivated abuse while ignoring the blockade and its affects on the people hardly offers much reassurance to the Cuban government that those who show such close interest in its human rights affairs do so out of genuine concern. When ‘concern’ originates from the US or is sponsored by the US it is little wonder that Cuba quite literally detects a very smelly rat.
Fidel Castro on...
HUMAN RIGHTS"No children in Cuba have to beg or are homeless; no children have to scrounge a living in the streets."
"In our country everyone knows how to read and write. Hundreds of millions of children in the world don’t have access to medical treatment, but in Cuba every child goes to school and has access to medical care."
"Child prostitution which is general in the rest of the Third World does not exist in Cuba."
" In Cuba every human being has an equal opportunity to develop physically and intellectually, without any discrimination based on race or sex. This is true for everyone without any differences between rich and poor."
"Life expectancy has increased considerably - to over 75 years - since the triumph of the revolution. We have given every citizen dozens of additional years and the possibility of a healthier, safer life."
"In our country, everybody has been given the possibility of working, and all citizens have social protection through retirement, pensions and social security. No one has been left to their fate in the years since the revolution."
"Those irritating differences between millionaire and beggars have disappeared; no one has to beg here now. People need more than bread: they need honour, dignity, respect and to be treated like human beings."
"For more than 30 years, no measures of force have been employed against the people. For more than 30 years, no workers’, farmers’, students’ or other people’s demonstrations have been repressed. For more than 30 years, no police or soldiers have hurled themselves against the people in order to beat them up or repress them, and no trucks, tear gas or buck shot have been used against the people here."
"Here, we share what we have. We don’t have any gross inequality, with some having much more than they need and dying of heart attacks and cholesterol, while others starve to death. Here we share everything our country belongs to all of us, and it’s riches belong to all of us too."
"In Latin America, we know of countless cases of violence, torture, disappearances, death squads and other crimes. In the years since the revolution, Cuba hasn’t had any death squads or any victims of those illegal methods of imposing order. No people have disappeared in Cuba since the revolution."
"I think that it is an affront to our people to suppose that they would support a revolution that didn’t have such a blameless record or to suppose that they were unable to denounce any violation of that kind that might be committed in our country, because our people wouldn’t accept - wouldn’t tolerate- any such thing."
"What basis can there be for all the slander campaigns launched against Cuba? Naturally, we are accustomed to this, and it just rolls off our backs, because we’re used to the imperialists’ baseness. How can they survive without lies? How can they explain all of the crimes they commit against the world, if not with lies and calumny, trying to discredit those who oppose them ?"
THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS
Why was there such a reaction from the EU and Ireland to the blockade of Cuba when it affected our sovereignty and right to trade when there was such silence when it was only Cuba and its people were being affected?
In 1993 and 1994 why did Ireland abstain at the UN when the US tightened the blockade in defiance of existing UN General Assembly resolutions and at a time when the collapse of Cuba’s trading arrangements with eastern Europe was having such harsh consequences on the Cuban people?
When the European Parliament declared in 1993 that ..."the economic, trade and financial embargo by the United States is affecting the civilian population above all, depriving them of food, medicines and basic necessities" why was this not regarded as a human rights issue?
How can Ireland complain about the existence of emergency legislation in Cuba while at the same time having lived under a state of emergency for more than 50 years (1939 -94) and when some of that emergency legislation - the Special Criminal Court - is still in place?
In determining human rights issues why are the definitions contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights used selectively and why is such behaviour tolerated by the media?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore, the General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article I All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.