Stop Pretending
Published in El Tiempo
(Colombia) on 22 April 2009
by Sergio Muñoz Bata (link to original)
As expected, U.S. President Barack Obama was the main attraction of the fifth Summit of the Americas. With his usual lucidity and displaying his natural modesty and cordiality, the current occupant of the White House not only confirmed the abysmal difference that separates him from his predecessor, but also proposed the reconciliation of the Americas.
Predictably, with his usual impudence, the buffoonish Hugo Chavez lost no opportunity to create discord in the Summit. Worse yet, in an action not without irony, he took advantage of Obama’s proximity to, for the record, be photographed with the leader of “American imperialism.” Did he also ask him to autograph it?
Also predictable was the lamentable reaction of the dinosaurian former leader of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, who on an ultra-conservative television channel was quick to characterize Obama’s bonhomie during the summit as weakness, comparing him to Jimmy Carter.
“I think it (the photograph) sends a terrible signal to Latin America, about how the new administration regards dictators,” Gingrich said.
The response of brothers Castro to the of détente that Obama has raised is unpredictable. The ambiguous statement of Raul Castro before the summit raised all sorts of speculation, predominately those that judge it as positive. But specifics are needed. What is Raul Castro talking about when he says that Cuba would sit at the table with the United States to talk about human rights? Is he thinking of a conversation in which he and Obama would discuss if human rights violations on the island take place in Guantnamo or in the prisons where those who are in disagreement with Cuban dictatorship end up?
This is my fear. Obama, through no fault of his own, will have to bear the burden for the aberrations made by his predecessor. I am also not encouraged by the bizarre statements made by the Venezuelan lieutenant colonel when he smugly professed, “without doubt, there is more democracy in Cuba than in the United States.” How is it possible to talk sensibly with someone when the premise of the argument stems from this type of hallucination?
Obama has suggested a sequence of events that could pave the way for a gradual détente and has taken the first step lifting certain travel restrictions to the island and to the sending of remittances. It is now Cuba’s turn to respond substantively; for example, releasing political prisoners.
Obama cannot do more because he lives in a country where the rule of law and separation of powers prevails. He cannot claim extraordinary powers and decide alone. Neither can he enter into collusion with the opposition in the style of Daniel Ortega, to (mis)govern without hindrance.
What can be done, as pointed out by Jose Miguel Vivance of Human Rights Watch, is for Cuban lobbyists to accept the fact that “the Cuban government continues to ensure that there is political consensus through criminal prosecutions, short and long-term detentions, harassment of people through mass demonstrations, physical violence and surveillance." Currently, there are more than 200 political prisoners in Cuba’s prisons.
In this sense, what the rulers of Latin American countries that presently uncritically and unconditionally support Cuba need to do if they truly want to contribute to détente in the hemisphere is to put pressure on the Castros to commit to upholding human rights in Cuba. These leaders need to point out to them their obsolescence and convince them that it is time to open the island to political competition and to imitate the other famous dictator of the continent who dared convene a plebiscite so that Chileans could chose in a free, sovereign and transparent manner the type of political regime in which they wanted to live.
Predictably, with his usual impudence, the buffoonish Hugo Chavez lost no opportunity to create discord in the Summit. Worse yet, in an action not without irony, he took advantage of Obama’s proximity to, for the record, be photographed with the leader of “American imperialism.” Did he also ask him to autograph it?
Also predictable was the lamentable reaction of the dinosaurian former leader of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, who on an ultra-conservative television channel was quick to characterize Obama’s bonhomie during the summit as weakness, comparing him to Jimmy Carter.
“I think it (the photograph) sends a terrible signal to Latin America, about how the new administration regards dictators,” Gingrich said.
The response of brothers Castro to the of détente that Obama has raised is unpredictable. The ambiguous statement of Raul Castro before the summit raised all sorts of speculation, predominately those that judge it as positive. But specifics are needed. What is Raul Castro talking about when he says that Cuba would sit at the table with the United States to talk about human rights? Is he thinking of a conversation in which he and Obama would discuss if human rights violations on the island take place in Guantnamo or in the prisons where those who are in disagreement with Cuban dictatorship end up?
This is my fear. Obama, through no fault of his own, will have to bear the burden for the aberrations made by his predecessor. I am also not encouraged by the bizarre statements made by the Venezuelan lieutenant colonel when he smugly professed, “without doubt, there is more democracy in Cuba than in the United States.” How is it possible to talk sensibly with someone when the premise of the argument stems from this type of hallucination?
Obama has suggested a sequence of events that could pave the way for a gradual détente and has taken the first step lifting certain travel restrictions to the island and to the sending of remittances. It is now Cuba’s turn to respond substantively; for example, releasing political prisoners.
Obama cannot do more because he lives in a country where the rule of law and separation of powers prevails. He cannot claim extraordinary powers and decide alone. Neither can he enter into collusion with the opposition in the style of Daniel Ortega, to (mis)govern without hindrance.
What can be done, as pointed out by Jose Miguel Vivance of Human Rights Watch, is for Cuban lobbyists to accept the fact that “the Cuban government continues to ensure that there is political consensus through criminal prosecutions, short and long-term detentions, harassment of people through mass demonstrations, physical violence and surveillance." Currently, there are more than 200 political prisoners in Cuba’s prisons.
In this sense, what the rulers of Latin American countries that presently uncritically and unconditionally support Cuba need to do if they truly want to contribute to détente in the hemisphere is to put pressure on the Castros to commit to upholding human rights in Cuba. These leaders need to point out to them their obsolescence and convince them that it is time to open the island to political competition and to imitate the other famous dictator of the continent who dared convene a plebiscite so that Chileans could chose in a free, sovereign and transparent manner the type of political regime in which they wanted to live.