NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush pushes democracy for Cuba By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush chastised most other countries Friday for "a sad and curious pattern" of doing little to speak out against human rights and political abuses in Cuba. "Unfortunately, the list of countries supporting the Cuban people is far too short and the democracies absent from that list are far too notable," Bush said at the White House.

The "small band of brave nations" speaking out for freedom in Cuba include, Bush said, his own administration as well as nations that were in the Communist bloc but are now democratic such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

"The United States has not been silent, nor will we be silent," he said. "When a new day finally dawns for Cubans, they will remember the few brave nations that stood with them, and the many that did not."

Bush spoke after meeting in the Oval Office with former prisoner Miguel Sigler Amaya and his wife, Josefa Lopez Pena.

Five years ago this month, in what Bush called "a tragic moment in the history of Cuba," Amaya was among scores arrested for offenses against the regime. He was released in 2006 and ordered to leave the country with his wife. But 55 of the 75 pro-democracy activists arrested in that 2003 crackdown remain in prison for their participation in peaceful activities, including Amaya's brothers, Ariel and Guida Sigler Amaya.

"For Miguel and Josefa, the horrors of life in Cuba are behind them, but millions of others are still trapped in the tropical gulag," Bush said. "Yet most of the world says nothing."

The president said the global community has largely remained silent in recent months, even as dozens of young Cubans wearing "change" bracelets were arrested, as Cuban authorities raided a Catholic church to spray parishioners with tear gas and drag them away. Last weekend, activists distributing copies of the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights were pushed and beaten.

"That same week, Cuba signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Bush said. "The international community applauded Cuba for signing a piece of paper — but on the abuses that same week, much of the world was silent."

The Cuban government, which often takes several days to respond to criticisms from Washington — if it responds as all — had no immediate comment Friday on the Bush speech.

Bush has renewed his focus on Cuba since Fidel Castro officially stepped down last month after decades ruling the island. Fidel's brother, Raul, took over as president in the ailing leader's place. He had been provisional president since his brother, who led the nation for nearly a half-century, underwent emergency surgery in July 2006.

But Bush said any speculation that the leadership shift would affect U.S. policy toward Cuba "is exactly backward."

"So far, all Cuba has done is replace one dictator with another," the president said. "This is the same system, the same faces, and the same policies that led Cuba to its miseries in the first place."

The only way for relations to improve between Cuba and the United States, he said, is for the government there to pave the way for free and fair elections, release all political prisoners and respect human rights "in word and deed."

"What needs to change is not the United States; what needs to change is Cuba," the president said. "Cuba's government must begin a process as peaceful democratic change."

For years, lawmakers of both parties have been trying to chip away at the United States' Cold War-era trade, travel and home visit restrictions aimed at undermining a hostile government just 90 miles from U.S. shores. They argue that last month's change in leadership provides the opportunity to lift the embargo.

The Bush administration, however, has been adamant that a new Castro in power doesn't mean a new Cuba.
___

Associated Press writer Anita Snow in Havana contributed to this report.

-------------------------------------------------

I could not have said it any better myself. See this is what I have never been able to understand. And probably will not understand after this thread.

The only reason or main reason a USA embargo has never worked is. After the Soviet Union and its eastern European empire fell apart. What saved the Cuban dictatorship government. Was Canadian, European Union trade, foreign investments, and over 2 million mostly Canadian and European tourists and diplomatic dialogue and Cuban American family remittances $.

I cannot beleive that any European Union leader. Ever beleived this European policy while calling for multi party democratic reforms in Cuba under President Fidel would work. That President Fidel Castro would ever agree to these stated goals of the European Union.

The relaese of all Cuban political prisoners within Cuba not exile. Multi party elections. Economic reforms would come from multi party elections anyways.

This is the other policy that has also failed, granted under President Fidel. Time well tell if this European policy supported by the European Union and most Democrats with some Republicans will work with President Raul. I dont think so.

What should the European Union do if this policy also fails under President Raul?
A Canada, USA, European embargo? Maybe with some other nations support, like Hispanic nations, ect, ect?
The same policy as now?

What I also dont understand and probably will not understand after this thread is.
Persons like on this forum who wish for cuban government democratic reforms also support full USA Cuban government relations with no Cuban democratic government reforms.

As for the so called USA embargo remaining sanctions. The Cuban government buys agricultural products from the USA on a COD basis. The Cuban government not the Cuban people trade with most nations of the world.

Despite the USA to Cuba money $ and travel restrictions. Cuban Americans do travel to Cuba to visit family. Cuban Americans send hard currency Dollars $ and Euros to family in Cuba. Make phone calls, send letters and care packages. A certain number of Cuban citizens visit Cuban Americans in the USA. Paid for $ by Cuban Americans.

As for the argument that the embargo helps Fidel with the Cuban people in Cuba more than hurts him. I disagree. Perhaps during the Soviet Union's time but not now. I think it helps him with anti Americanism no matter who is USA President and what policy the USA President has towards Cuba. Including anti Americanism of past and current European Union leaders.

Cuban citizens in Cuba know Cuba trades with most nations of the world. Even buys agricultural products from the USA on a COD basis. Know of Canadian and European tourists, of Cuban American family remittances $ and care packages.

The European union has tried the policy the democrats have always called for without insisting on any Cuban government democratic reforms. Now election time they sound more like Republicans. And it is the other failed policy of over 160 nations. Including the Hispanic nations who also remain silent instead of calling for Cuban democratic government reforms. Instead of supporting thier Cuban American Hispanic brothers and the Cuban people in Cuba.

There are ove 3 million former Cuban citizens under President Fidel all over the world including the recent Balseros who keep coming. Cuban Americans have millions of family, relatives members in Cuba who receive & or depend on Cuban American family remittances $. Yet the Cuban dictatorship government claims over 95 to 99 % percent support.

As for Fidel who writes on Granma, has statements read for him on Cuban TV but never seen in public. Fidel is dead and this is all a cruel hoax on the Cuban people and the world. Or Fidel is too sick, perhaps too senile to be seen in public. Or in a coma at best.

If you agree with me or not fine. But now do you understand how those darn crazy Cuban Americans feel about the world and thier Hispanic brother nations lack of support? Now do you underestand why Those darn crazy Cuban Americans say and do the darnest things?

I could not have said it any better myself than President George W Bush on this one.

My apologies for such a long introduction thread, long same questions.

LHC.

Posted Sat Mar 08-08 about 03:10 AM Florida Time.

first off, i never have and never will support america's forign policy of economic and idiological prejudice.

secondly, i very much doubt lord shrubery the simple, or any other crypto-nazi neo-con would know democracy from a hole in the ground if it bit them on the ass.

and thirdly, while i don't see marxism as any sort of ultimate answer to anything, if and when the dominance of america's policies deminishes, the entire planet and every living thing on it, will be that much better off.

=^^=
.../\...

WASHINGTON - President Bush chastised most other countries Friday for "a sad and curious pattern" of doing little to speak out against human rights and political abuses in Cuba.

This, coming from Mr You've-got-nothing-to-hide-so-I-spy-on-everyone-and-jail-and-torture-who-I-please Bush, is richly amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Habana Cuba
WASHINGTON - President Bush chastised most other countries Friday for "a sad and curious pattern" of doing little to speak out against human rights and political abuses in Cuba.

This, coming from Mr You've-got-nothing-to-hide-so-I-spy-on-everyone-and-jail-and-torture-who-I-please Bush, is richly amusing.

Do you Non Aligned States as you are, speak out against human rights and political abuses in Cuba by the Cuban government on this forum? Richly amusing.

Bush lecturing on democracy is like the westbro baptist church lecturing on how to have a happy and open gay relationship

Bush is hoping for another lap-dog government that he can command around and do his bidding without getting American hands dirty.
Like I stated in many other posts,Bush wants a "United States of the World"

I hope Raul Comes to his sences,and continues the Communist government that seems to have worked so well for the past 50 years or so,and show Bush that he's not about to let his country become,politically speaking,the 51st state.

As a citizen of Slovakia who sees that our Prime Minister often visits Cuban Embassy, hears of new economic treaties between Slovakia and Cuba and hears nothing of any official condemnation of regime of Cuba by my government from last elections, I disagree that War Criminal tries to place my country to camp of his in EU but loyally supporting from within the policy of USA lapdog countries.

I freakin knew we'd stick our big ass nose in their business very soon. I hope they give us the big fat finger .. or what ever their equivalent of it is there.

Oh .. and you better believe our ass is involved ... one way or the other ... with this Columbia shit.

The only reason or main reason a USA embargo has never worked is. After the Soviet Union and its eastern European empire fell apart. What saved the Cuban dictatorship government. Was Canadian, European Union trade, foreign investments, and over 2 million mostly Canadian and European tourists and diplomatic dialogue and Cuban American family remittances $.
Yep, when all else fails, blame Europe.

I waas under the impression tat Cuba had a democracy... definatly not a US type of democracy but one just the same. Cuba needs to make reforms on how they treat thier citizens but witht he current way of things here in the US I beleive that we have very little reason to butt into thier business

<snip>I can't help but notice that Bush is basically saying "If you don't democratize, I'll get very angry, and then I'll deliver a speech telling everyone about just how angry I am!" =/

I generally agree, however were I Cuban, I'd feel a bit uneasy, knowing how Bush brought democracy to Iraq.

This, coming from Mr You've-got-nothing-to-hide-so-I-spy-on-everyone-and-jail-and-torture-who-I-please Bush, is richly amusing.

I think that covers 'all the bases' as our American friends say.

Do you Non Aligned States as you are, speak out against human rights and political abuses in Cuba by the Cuban government on this forum? Richly amusing.

I don't have a habit of imprisoning people without trial for years while torturing them. And insofar as I know, Cuba doesn't have a habit of telling the world that it is the "bastion of liberty and freedom" or for that matter, how other countries should be like.

Maybe you want Bush to bring Cuba "freedom and democracy" like he did Iraq? You've expressed a lot of hate towards Cuba as a whole before, although you like to cloak it under the guise of human suffering.

And I've never seen you say a bad thing about the whole Guantanamo thing either. So pot, meet kettle.

I waas under the impression tat Cuba had a democracy... definatly not a US type of democracy but one just the same. Cuba needs to make reforms on how they treat thier citizens but witht he current way of things here in the US I beleive that we have very little reason to butt into thier business
Your impression was wrong.

Cuba only allows 1 political party..any differing ideologies are not tolerated. Not a democracy.

Bush wants democracy for cuba? what about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Somalia, and all the other countries under dictatorships, honestly my opinion on democracy has gone down to an all time low.

Your impression was wrong.

Cuba only allows 1 political party..any differing ideologies are not tolerated. Not a democracy.

Like I said, under the impression. I had honestly never payed much attention to Cuban politics. I have more pressing concerns.. like keeping my job.

WASHINGTON - President Bush chastised most other countries Friday for "a sad and curious pattern" of doing little to speak out against human rights and political abuses in Cuba.

Yet he'll freely interact with China. Interesting.

I waas under the impression tat Cuba had a democracy...
Your impression is wrong.

But yeah, US foreign policy has shown time and time again that 'democracy' means 'someone free-market, please'. See the whole Haïti affair a few years back.

Your impression was wrong.

Cuba only allows 1 political party..any differing ideologies are not tolerated. Not a democracy.

As a further illustration of the point...

Their electoral system is also based around "non-competitive elections" (what an oxymoron), in which people are offered the choice to approve or disapprove of a pre-chosen candidate, who is virtually never disapproved.

Yet he'll freely interact with China. Interesting.

Nukes.

Bush wants democracy for cuba? what about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Somalia, and all the other countries under dictatorships, honestly my opinion on democracy has gone down to an all time low.To be fair, Somalia isn't exactly under anything at the moment.

I waas under the impression tat Cuba had a democracy... definatly not a US type of democracy but one just the same. Cuba needs to make reforms on how they treat thier citizens but witht he current way of things here in the US I beleive that we have very little reason to butt into thier business

Cuba has some aspects of a democracy, including elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and some others. The trouble with their election system is that many parts of it do not have a system of checks and balances to counteract possible government intervention. This, like the crackdowns on anti-governemnt protests, is a holdover from the hotter part of the Cold War, when the USA was undoubtedly attempting to use Cuban elections to topple Castro.

Your impression was wrong.

Cuba only allows 1 political party..any differing ideologies are not tolerated. Not a democracy.

It wouldn't matter if Cuba allowed several parties or not, as that is not where the problems lie for Cuba's electoral system. The problem is that the system is structured in such a way that the incumbent government could influence the results more or less unilaterally.

As a further illustration of the point...

Their electoral system is also based around "non-competitive elections" (what an oxymoron), in which people are offered the choice to approve or disapprove of a pre-chosen candidate, who is virtually never disapproved.

Simplistic but true. You forgot to mention that it is the local community who chooses the "pre-chosen canditate", an important point.

For a quick and dirty intro, wiki has an article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba

Chances are that Cuba will never have an electoral process like the USA's, but that's fine, as many democracies such as Canada and the UK also have electoral processes that are different from the USA.

If we want to look at the issue of electoral reform, then what I would like to see in Cuba is a government held accountable to an electoral process that they cannot influence. The exact details don't matter beyond that.

Cuba has some aspects of a democracy, including elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and some others. The trouble with their election system is that many parts of it do not have a system of checks and balances to counteract possible government intervention. This, like the crackdowns on anti-governemnt protests, is a holdover from the hotter part of the Cold War, when the USA was undoubtedly attempting to use Cuban elections to topple Castro.Not really. Suppose someone wants to say something to the bunch of Western journalists. They'll immediatly disappear in a crowd of people, only to be seen later on holding their head as though they'd been injured.

Not really. Suppose someone wants to say something to the bunch of Western journalists. They'll immediatly disappear in a crowd of people, only to be seen later on holding their head as though they'd been injured.

Freedom of speech in Cuba:

http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/freedom_of_speech.html

People in Cuba do not often speak out against the government. There are some who are not afraid to and do so. A taxi driver told us, "I don't want the President, I don't want the Government, I don't want the Revolution!"

Clearly he was not afraid of saying this, and there is no chance anyone would find out about it. If the government were to find out, it is doubtful anything would happen. However, without ever witnessing such a response, it is impossible for us to know what events would take place. Unfortunately, many people who claim that Cuba has no freedom of speech are also unclear on the facts.

I would like to clarify that this freedom of speech is restricted to private individuals. Journalists are heavily censored, as well as NGO's. But the private individual on the street can pretty much say whatever he or she feels like.

Freedom of speech in Cuba:

http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/freedom_of_speech.html



I would like to clarify that this freedom of speech is restricted to private individuals. Journalists are heavily censored, as well as NGO's. But the private individual on the street can pretty much say whatever he or she feels like.Depends. After Castro resigned, they had a special on Cuba on the German channels. One part of it was footage of what I described happening. I'm sure a cab driver is less likely to be swarmed for obvious reasons.

Depends. After Castro resigned, they had a special on Cuba on the German channels. One part of it was footage of what I described happening. I'm sure a cab driver is less likely to be swarmed for obvious reasons.

I find it hard to believe that someone would be attacked simply for talking to foreign journalists, as the international news about Cuba is full of interviews with Cubans.

So, Bush's to-do list for this Saturday is:

- Veto bill against torture.
- Veto bill for constitutional rights.
- Chastise other countries about being undemocratic.

I want to know, does

ANYONE ELSE SEE THE INCOHERENCY HERE???

For the record of the NS Jolt Co Forum rules My comments follow the article :

EU official in Cuba to improve relations
Posted on Fri, Mar. 07, 2008Digg del.icio.us AIM print email
By WILL WEISSERT
Associated Press Writer

Javier Galeano / AP Photo
Loius Michel, EU Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, smiles during a meeting in Havana, Friday, March 7, 2008. Michel is in Cuba on a four-days to improve relations with the Cuban government.
» More Photos
HAVANA -- The European Union's top development aid official met with Cuba's foreign minister on Friday as part of an effort to improve chilly relations with the communist government under new President Raul Castro.

Louis Michel's four-day mission was planned before last month's official hand-over of power from 81-year-old Fidel Castro to his younger brother. It is the first high-level visit of an EU official since 2005.

Michel's meeting with Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque extended well past the scheduled 90 minutes and there was no immediate word on what was discussed.

Michel's spokesman, John Clancy, has said the European Commission wants to see "the resumption of an open and constructive political dialogue" with Cuban leaders.

Though he has been official head of state for less than two weeks, the 76-year-old Raul Castro has run the government since Fidel underwent emergency intestinal in July 2006. The EU's 27 governments last year asked Raul Castro to restart regular bilateral talks, and Clancy said the first new Cuban leader in nearly half a century "constitutes a new situation."

Cuba responded to Europe's olive branch by inviting Michel to the island, though it has remained hesitant to take steps to improve relations, which soured in 2003 when the EU imposed diplomatic sanctions after authorities here imprisoned 75 dissidents and independent journalists. Cuba's government accused them of working with the United States to undermine the government.

Cuban authorities released 16 on medical parole and four others were freed into forced exile in Spain last month, but 55 remain behind bars.

In January 2005, the EU suspended the sanctions, restoring diplomatic relations and ending its ban on talks with Cuban officials. But it also asked Havana to release political prisoners and grant freedom of expression and information to its citizens, and said it would continue supporting dissidents and government critics.

In a statement last summer, Perez Roque's office made it clear Cuba won't formally negotiate improve relations until the EU totally scraps the sanctions.

It added that the EU's call for dialogue only after Havana makes improvements in human rights "meddles, in a slanderous way, in strictly internal Cuban affairs, making judgments and announcing unjust and hypocritical acts that Cuba considers offensive and unacceptable and rejects completely."

Spain is leading efforts to improve relations with Havana, while countries including Britain, the Czech Republic, Poland and Sweden have been more guarded.

Cuba is accused of violating human rights and basic liberties by jailing government critics and limiting speech, Internet access, travel and media freedoms. The government claims it respects human rights more than most nations by offering a wide social safety net that includes a food ration program and free health care and education. It dismisses outspoken critics and dissidents as U.S. "mercenaries."

----------------------------------------------------------------

OK European Trade, foreign investments, tourists, diplomatic relations and dialogue with the Cuban government sound like a noble thing while we dialogue. Lets say I am the Cuban government a one political party state and you are the European Union.

You call on my government to release all non violent political prisoneers, allow multi party elections to my National Assembly.

But here is the problem. We talk, we dialogue, we can talk and dialogue forever, agree to disagree on this or any issues, while I the Cuban government receive all your benefits of trade, foreign investments, tourists, and hard currency money $.

I the Cuban government release a few political prisoners within Cuba not exile, exile a few, arrest a few more.

That has been the policy of the Cuban government under Fidel. Now it seems to also be the policy of the Cuban government under President Raul.

The other failed policy of over 160 nations in one way or another.

I find it hard to believe that someone would be attacked simply for talking to foreign journalists, as the international news about Cuba is full of interviews with Cubans.Perhaps they haven't been saying the wrong things then =/

Simplistic but true. You forgot to mention that it is the local community who chooses the "pre-chosen canditate", an important point.

For a quick and dirty intro, wiki has an article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba

If by the community, you mean the terror-apparatus of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution? Organizations responsible for acts of repudiation?

Chances are that Cuba will never have an electoral process like the USA's, but that's fine, as many democracies such as Canada and the UK also have electoral processes that are different from the USA.

Except this isn't an electoral process. There is no competition, candidates are chosen with strong influence from a decentralized terror-apparatus and people are not permitted to organize politically. It's a purebred joke to call that democratic.

If we want to look at the issue of electoral reform, then what I would like to see in Cuba is a government held accountable to an electoral process that they cannot influence. The exact details don't matter beyond that.

Competitive, multi-party elections wouldn't hurt. Allowing people to organize along political interest lines also wouldn't be a bad idea.

I find it hard to believe that someone would be attacked simply for talking to foreign journalists, as the international news about Cuba is full of interviews with Cubans.

I remember something someone linked to, and it was BBC interviews of Cubans after Castro's death, as evidence that Cubans could talk to the foreign press. The problem being, that over 3/4 of the people interviewed were no longer in Cuba, some were in Miami, some Spain, and one in Amsterdam, if I recall. They only had one actual on-the-island Cuban, and he didn't say anything more than "Yup, Castro left office, maybe some stuff will change, I don't know how".

So, Bush's to-do list for this Saturday is:

- Veto bill against torture.
- Veto bill for constitutional rights.
- Chastise other countries about being undemocratic.

I want to know, does

ANYONE ELSE SEE THE INCOHERENCY HERE???

Yeah, a tu quoque fallacy.

Yeah, a tu quoque fallacy.Only if Heikoku is arguing that Bush's hypocrisy is evidence of Cuba's innocence.

If by the community, you mean the terror-apparatus of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution? Organizations responsible for acts of repudiation?

If I had meant anything other than the community, I would have used another word. If you wish to claim that the CDR is a terror apparatus, then I would expect some sort of source or back up for such a claim.

Except this isn't an electoral process. There is no competition, candidates are chosen with strong influence from a decentralized terror-apparatus and people are not permitted to organize politically. It's a purebred joke to call that democratic.

The competition is in getting the candidacy. That should be obvious.And if you have some sort of evidence that the CDRs have a disproportionate influence on the nominations, I would like to see it.

Competitive, multi-party elections wouldn't hurt. Allowing people to organize along political interest lines also wouldn't be a bad idea.

Perhaps, I don't know. They work in other democracies, but such proposals don't really address the actual problems with the Cuban election process.

I remember something someone linked to, and it was BBC interviews of Cubans after Castro's death, as evidence that Cubans could talk to the foreign press. The problem being, that over 3/4 of the people interviewed were no longer in Cuba, some were in Miami, some Spain, and one in Amsterdam, if I recall. They only had one actual on-the-island Cuban, and he didn't say anything more than "Yup, Castro left office, maybe some stuff will change, I don't know how".

Wait, so you're saying that a foreign journalist spoke to a Cuban in Cuba and there was no evidence that he was beaten for it?

Wow, one could argue that that proves my point!

If I had meant anything other than the community, I would have used another word. If you wish to claim that the CDR is a terror apparatus, then I would expect some sort of source or back up for such a claim.

Done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#.22Acts_of_repudiation.22
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/001/2006/en/0172b401-a2ca-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/amr250012006en.html
Under the subheading "Upsurge in Violent Attacks".

The competition is in getting the candidacy. That should be obvious.And if you have some sort of evidence that the CDRs have a disproportionate influence on the nominations, I would like to see it.

The reason the CDR's have a disproportionate influence on the nomination process, is because of the authority they have to harass and terrorize members of the population they view as dissenting. It's not that complex.



Perhaps, I don't know. They work in other democracies, but such proposals don't really address the actual problems with the Cuban election process.

The current system is devised along the lines of on which would "divide and conquer" the opposition. If people are denied the basic freedom of association that is implicit in the formation of political parties, then there is no fully functioning democratic system at hand, especially when one specific party has had the reigns of the government, and access to its resources for so long, and has regularly used them for propaganda purposes.



Wait, so you're saying that a foreign journalist spoke to a Cuban in Cuba and there was no evidence that he was beaten for it?

Wow, one could argue that that proves my point!

No, no it doesn't, given that the individual did not say anything even remotely negative about the government.

Only if Heikoku is arguing that Bush's hypocrisy is evidence of Cuba's innocence.

Which I am not. I AM arguing that if anyone speaks against Cuba, they should also speak against Bush, and vice-versa.

The Human Rights Watch World Report for 2007

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k7/wr2007master.pdf

Cuba is on page 207.

I shall quote the introduction:

"Cuba remains the one country in Latin America that represses nearly all forms of political dissent."

Which I am not. I AM arguing that if anyone speaks against Cuba, they should also speak against Bush, and vice-versa.

Bush is a douche. He has failed in many areas in regards to human rights. Torture, Extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, and the facade of legality at Guantanamo Bay are all black marks on his record, and even more, he has generally sullied the record of the United States in the international community. Happy?

That doesn't change the fact that the US remains a functioning democracy, with multi-party elections, and a strong democratic tradition.

None of which can be said for Cuba.

Only if Heikoku is arguing that Bush's hypocrisy is evidence of Cuba's innocence.

It does not diminish the legitimacy of Bush's criticism, though.

I have decided to add this interesting article to my introduction post 1, therefore the re-post. President Bush may not be the right person to speak out agianst human right abuses in any nation to most posters. But that does not change the substance of the articles or issues on Cuba. The thread is not about President Bush it is about the Cuban government.

For the record of the NS Jolt Co Forum rules My comments follow the article

EU official in Cuba to improve relations
Posted on Fri, Mar. 07, 2008Digg del.icio.us AIM print email
By WILL WEISSERT
Associated Press Writer

Javier Galeano / AP Photo
Loius Michel, EU Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, smiles during a meeting in Havana, Friday, March 7, 2008. Michel is in Cuba on a four-days to improve relations with the Cuban government.
» More Photos
HAVANA -- The European Union's top development aid official met with Cuba's foreign minister on Friday as part of an effort to improve chilly relations with the communist government under new President Raul Castro.

Louis Michel's four-day mission was planned before last month's official hand-over of power from 81-year-old Fidel Castro to his younger brother. It is the first high-level visit of an EU official since 2005.

Michel's meeting with Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque extended well past the scheduled 90 minutes and there was no immediate word on what was discussed.

Michel's spokesman, John Clancy, has said the European Commission wants to see "the resumption of an open and constructive political dialogue" with Cuban leaders.

Though he has been official head of state for less than two weeks, the 76-year-old Raul Castro has run the government since Fidel underwent emergency intestinal in July 2006. The EU's 27 governments last year asked Raul Castro to restart regular bilateral talks, and Clancy said the first new Cuban leader in nearly half a century "constitutes a new situation."

Cuba responded to Europe's olive branch by inviting Michel to the island, though it has remained hesitant to take steps to improve relations, which soured in 2003 when the EU imposed diplomatic sanctions after authorities here imprisoned 75 dissidents and independent journalists. Cuba's government accused them of working with the United States to undermine the government.

Cuban authorities released 16 on medical parole and four others were freed into forced exile in Spain last month, but 55 remain behind bars.

In January 2005, the EU suspended the sanctions, restoring diplomatic relations and ending its ban on talks with Cuban officials. But it also asked Havana to release political prisoners and grant freedom of expression and information to its citizens, and said it would continue supporting dissidents and government critics.

In a statement last summer, Perez Roque's office made it clear Cuba won't formally negotiate improve relations until the EU totally scraps the sanctions.

It added that the EU's call for dialogue only after Havana makes improvements in human rights "meddles, in a slanderous way, in strictly internal Cuban affairs, making judgments and announcing unjust and hypocritical acts that Cuba considers offensive and unacceptable and rejects completely."

Spain is leading efforts to improve relations with Havana, while countries including Britain, the Czech Republic, Poland and Sweden have been more guarded.

Cuba is accused of violating human rights and basic liberties by jailing government critics and limiting speech, Internet access, travel and media freedoms. The government claims it respects human rights more than most nations by offering a wide social safety net that includes a food ration program and free health care and education. It dismisses outspoken critics and dissidents as U.S. "mercenaries."

----------------------------------------------------------------

OK European Trade, foreign investments, tourists, diplomatic relations and dialogue with the Cuban government sound like a noble thing while we dialogue. Lets say I am the Cuban government a one political party state and you are the European Union.

You call on my government to release all non violent political prisoneers, allow multi party elections to my National Assembly.

But here is the problem. We talk, we dialogue, we can talk and dialogue forever, agree to disagree on this or any issues, while I the Cuban government receive all your benefits of trade, foreign investments, tourists, and hard currency money $.

I the Cuban government release a few political prisoners within Cuba not exile, exile a few, arrest a few more.

That has been the policy of the Cuban government under Fidel. Now it seems to also be the policy of the Cuban government under President Raul.

The other failed policy of over 160 nations in one way or another.

------------------------------------------------------------------------



President Bush Pushes Democracy for Cuba.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush pushes democracy for Cuba By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush chastised most other countries Friday for "a sad and curious pattern" of doing little to speak out against human rights and political abuses in Cuba. "Unfortunately, the list of countries supporting the Cuban people is far too short and the democracies absent from that list are far too notable," Bush said at the White House.

The "small band of brave nations" speaking out for freedom in Cuba include, Bush said, his own administration as well as nations that were in the Communist bloc but are now democratic such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

"The United States has not been silent, nor will we be silent," he said. "When a new day finally dawns for Cubans, they will remember the few brave nations that stood with them, and the many that did not."

Bush spoke after meeting in the Oval Office with former prisoner Miguel Sigler Amaya and his wife, Josefa Lopez Pena.

Five years ago this month, in what Bush called "a tragic moment in the history of Cuba," Amaya was among scores arrested for offenses against the regime. He was released in 2006 and ordered to leave the country with his wife. But 55 of the 75 pro-democracy activists arrested in that 2003 crackdown remain in prison for their participation in peaceful activities, including Amaya's brothers, Ariel and Guida Sigler Amaya.

"For Miguel and Josefa, the horrors of life in Cuba are behind them, but millions of others are still trapped in the tropical gulag," Bush said. "Yet most of the world says nothing."

The president said the global community has largely remained silent in recent months, even as dozens of young Cubans wearing "change" bracelets were arrested, as Cuban authorities raided a Catholic church to spray parishioners with tear gas and drag them away. Last weekend, activists distributing copies of the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights were pushed and beaten.

"That same week, Cuba signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Bush said. "The international community applauded Cuba for signing a piece of paper — but on the abuses that same week, much of the world was silent."

The Cuban government, which often takes several days to respond to criticisms from Washington — if it responds as all — had no immediate comment Friday on the Bush speech.

Bush has renewed his focus on Cuba since Fidel Castro officially stepped down last month after decades ruling the island. Fidel's brother, Raul, took over as president in the ailing leader's place. He had been provisional president since his brother, who led the nation for nearly a half-century, underwent emergency surgery in July 2006.

But Bush said any speculation that the leadership shift would affect U.S. policy toward Cuba "is exactly backward."

"So far, all Cuba has done is replace one dictator with another," the president said. "This is the same system, the same faces, and the same policies that led Cuba to its miseries in the first place."

The only way for relations to improve between Cuba and the United States, he said, is for the government there to pave the way for free and fair elections, release all political prisoners and respect human rights "in word and deed."

"What needs to change is not the United States; what needs to change is Cuba," the president said. "Cuba's government must begin a process as peaceful democratic change."

For years, lawmakers of both parties have been trying to chip away at the United States' Cold War-era trade, travel and home visit restrictions aimed at undermining a hostile government just 90 miles from U.S. shores. They argue that last month's change in leadership provides the opportunity to lift the embargo.

The Bush administration, however, has been adamant that a new Castro in power doesn't mean a new Cuba.
___

Associated Press writer Anita Snow in Havana contributed to this report.

-------------------------------------------------

I could not have said it any better myself. See this is what I have never been able to understand. And probably will not understand after this thread.

The only reason or main reason a USA embargo has never worked is. After the Soviet Union and its eastern European empire fell apart. What saved the Cuban dictatorship government. Was Canadian, European Union trade, foreign investments, and over 2 million mostly Canadian and European tourists and diplomatic dialogue and Cuban American family remittances $.

I cannot beleive that any European Union leader. Ever beleived this European policy while calling for multi party democratic reforms in Cuba under President Fidel would work. That President Fidel Castro would ever agree to these stated goals of the European Union.

The relaese of all Cuban political prisoners within Cuba not exile. Multi party elections. Economic reforms would come from multi party elections anyways.

This is the other policy that has also failed, granted under President Fidel. Time well tell if this European policy supported by the European Union and most Democrats with some Republicans will work with President Raul. I dont think so.

What should the European Union do if this policy also fails under President Raul?
A Canada, USA, European embargo? Maybe with some other nations support, like Hispanic nations, ect, ect?
The same policy as now?

What I also dont understand and probably will not understand after this thread is.
Persons like on this forum who wish for cuban government democratic reforms also support full USA Cuban government relations with no Cuban democratic government reforms.

As for the so called USA embargo remaining sanctions. The Cuban government buys agricultural products from the USA on a COD basis. The Cuban government not the Cuban people trade with most nations of the world.

Despite the USA to Cuba money $ and travel restrictions. Cuban Americans do travel to Cuba to visit family. Cuban Americans send hard currency Dollars $ and Euros to family in Cuba. Make phone calls, send letters and care packages. A certain number of Cuban citizens visit Cuban Americans in the USA. Paid for $ by Cuban Americans.

As for the argument that the embargo helps Fidel with the Cuban people in Cuba more than hurts him. I disagree. Perhaps during the Soviet Union's time but not now. I think it helps him with anti Americanism no matter who is USA President and what policy the USA President has towards Cuba. Including anti Americanism of past and current European Union leaders.

Cuban citizens in Cuba know Cuba trades with most nations of the world. Even buys agricultural products from the USA on a COD basis. Know of Canadian and European tourists, of Cuban American family remittances $ and care packages.

The European union has tried the policy the democrats have always called for without insisting on any Cuban government democratic reforms. Now election time they sound more like Republicans. And it is the other failed policy of over 160 nations. Including the Hispanic nations who also remain silent instead of calling for Cuban democratic government reforms. Instead of supporting thier Cuban American Hispanic brothers and the Cuban people in Cuba.

There are ove 3 million former Cuban citizens under President Fidel all over the world including the recent Balseros who keep coming. Cuban Americans have millions of family, relatives members in Cuba who receive & or depend on Cuban American family remittances $. Yet the Cuban dictatorship government claims over 95 to 99 % percent support.

As for Fidel who writes on Granma, has statements read for him on Cuban TV but never seen in public. Fidel is dead and this is all a cruel hoax on the Cuban people and the world. Or Fidel is too sick, perhaps too senile to be seen in public. Or in a coma at best.

If you agree with me or not fine. But now do you understand how those darn crazy Cuban Americans feel about the world and thier Hispanic brother nations lack of support? Now do you underestand why Those darn crazy Cuban Americans say and do the darnest things?

I could not have said it any better myself than President George W Bush on this one.

My apologies for such a long introduction thread, long same questions.

LHC.

Posted Sat Mar 08-08 about 03:10 AM Florida Time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by La Habana Cuba : Today at 9:14 AM.

Done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#.22Acts_of_repudiation.22
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/001/2006/en/0172b401-a2ca-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/amr250012006en.html
Under the subheading "Upsurge in Violent Attacks".

The reason the CDR's have a disproportionate influence on the nomination process, is because of the authority they have to harass and terrorize members of the population they view as dissenting. It's not that complex.

Your first link is a wiki article that quotes your second link. If you don't mind, I will treat them as one source. Let's look closely at what we have here:

Upsurge in Violent Attacks

Amnesty International is also seriously concerned about a recent cases of "actos de repudio", "acts of repudiation", when large groups of government supporters verbally abuse, intimidate and sometimes physically assault and throw stones and other objects at homes of anyone considered to be counter-revolutionary . These acts are normally carried out in collusion with the security forces and sometimes involve the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution (CDRs), Comités de Defensa de la Revolución(7) or the Rapid Response Brigades, Destacamentos Populares de Respuesta Rápida(8). The level of violence of these recent acts is particularly worrying and unprecedented in the last few years.

You'd think that the (7) and (8) would be footnotes, showing the sources. No such luck. When you scroll down the page, you find this.

(7) The CDRs were founded in 1960 to "mobilise the people to defend the revolution and the conquests of socialism". They constitute the largest mass organization in Cuba and exist in every neighbourhood, in the collective task of vigilance against counter-revolutionary activity.

(8) Rapid Response Brigades are made up of Communist Party members and others. They were created in 1991 to confront, by violent means if necessary, any sign of discontent or opposition to the government.

So, what you have is a claim by Amnesty International that the CDRs are in collusion with the people who do these actos de repudio. It is a logical claim, if looked at in terms of realpolitik. And that these actos de repudio are a form of instilling terror in the populace so that local community members vote the CDR way in terms of the candidacies for government office.

If that were true, then it would have to be clear to the Cuban populace that the CDRs are controlling the people who commit the violence, and that the CDR will use these people to punish for the way they vote. The CDR would also have to be able to keep the international community completely ignorant of this. Now, to do this, the CDR would also have to know how people voted, which also means that they would have to have public rather than private ballots. This, of course, is not true. So, that would mean that the CDR has a secret way of checking how people voted.

This is starting to sound a bit conspiracy theoryish. I would suggest to you that the CDR may be in collusion with the people who commit the actos de repudio, but are not able to use this to influence the elections.

The current system is devised along the lines of on which would "divide and conquer" the opposition. If people are denied the basic freedom of association that is implicit in the formation of political parties, then there is no fully functioning democratic system at hand, especially when one specific party has had the reigns of the government, and access to its resources for so long, and has regularly used them for propaganda purposes.

The point I am trying to make is that the problems with the Cuban electoral system would not be resolved simply by grafting a US democracy model onto the Cuban context. It doesn't really matter if Cuba has multiparty elections for the National Legislature if the higher levels of government are still unaccountable to the legislature.

No, no it doesn't, given that the individual did not say anything even remotely negative about the government.

I believe that's called shifting the goalposts, as my original claim was that Cubans can talk to foreign journalists without getting their head bashed in. Now, I have provided two sources to that effect, one of which quotes someone being explicitly critical of the Castro administartion. Laerod mentioned a TV show where (s)he supposedly saw this, but did not provide a source. You have yet to provide any evidence that Cubans regularly get beaten up for talking to foreign journalists.

The Republicans are dusting off their empty chastisements of Cuba again? Must be an election year.:rolleyes: The sooner the Miami exiles realize they're being played for chumps the better off they'll be.

It does not diminish the legitimacy of Bush's criticism, though.Yes and no. It doesn't diminish the legitimacy of the criticism, but it does diminish the legitimacy of Bush delivering it.

So, what you have is a claim by Amnesty International that the CDRs are in collusion with the people who do these actos de repudio. It is a logical claim, if looked at in terms of realpolitik. And that these actos de repudio are a form of instilling terror in the populace so that local community members vote the CDR way in terms of the candidacies for government office.

If that were true, then it would have to be clear to the Cuban populace that the CDRs are controlling the people who commit the violence, and that the CDR will use these people to punish for the way they vote. The CDR would also have to be able to keep the international community completely ignorant of this. Now, to do this, the CDR would also have to know how people voted, which also means that they would have to have public rather than private ballots. This, of course, is not true. So, that would mean that the CDR has a secret way of checking how people voted.

This is starting to sound a bit conspiracy theoryish. I would suggest to you that the CDR may be in collusion with the people who commit the actos de repudio, but are not able to use this to influence the elections.



I would remind you that it is the voting process itself, the yes/no decision that is done "in secret", not the nominating process. The CDR's are closely involved in overseeing and organizing the nominating process. Further, the Cuban state has been, for many years, nothing more than a mechanism for the brothers Castro and the political party they helm to maintain a monopoly on power for over sixty years.

To say that there is a conspiracy in Cuba to maintain this situation is not too far off from from the truth. They have successfully deployed a mixture of bread, circuses and crucifixions (so to say) to maintain their control of the country, in a way that no other regional despot has managed to do.


The point I am trying to make is that the problems with the Cuban electoral system would not be resolved simply by grafting a US democracy model onto the Cuban context. It doesn't really matter if Cuba has multiparty elections for the National Legislature if the higher levels of government are still unaccountable to the legislature.

The effects of multiple, organized parties, though, would provide a means for the broad voicing of discontent with the system, and providing pressure on the higher levels of the government. Multi-party elections, and the decriminalizing of opposition parties would, certainly help in this field.



I believe that's called shifting the goalposts, as my original claim was that Cubans can talk to foreign journalists without getting their head bashed in. Now, I have provided two sources to that effect, one of which quotes someone being explicitly critical of the Castro administartion. Laerod mentioned a TV show where (s)he supposedly saw this, but did not provide a source. You have yet to provide any evidence that Cubans regularly get beaten up for talking to foreign journalists.

I never made the claim that Cubans cannot talk to foreign journalists, without threat to their own wellbeing, someone else might have, but I did not. I made the claim that expressing a hostile viewpoint to the Cuban government, especially when talking to foreign reporters, on the record, is likely to get one such a treatment. I shifted no goalposts, I'm have always been aiming at different goalposts.

The problem with embargoes is that the leaders who get embargoed are the leaders who abuse the system enough to be affected last.

Pushing for "democracy" in Cuba is all well and good in theory. However:

1) Sanctions are not the answer. They do nothing but provide the government with a scapegoat for its problems.

2) Cuba's internal affairs are just that; they are not pertinent to our security. Unless Cuba's actions directly effect us - which they do not - what they do is their own business.

3) If we're going to play the "democracy" mantra, let's at least show some consistency. If we're going to push Cuba, then why not push U.S. allies that have abhorrent human rights records, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq (more a puppet than an ally, but still), and Ethiopia?

I would remind you that it is the voting process itself, the yes/no decision that is done "in secret", not the nominating process.

Do you have a source for that?

The CDR's are closely involved in overseeing and organizing the nominating process.

Or that?

Further, the Cuban state has been, for many years, nothing more than a mechanism for the brothers Castro and the political party they helm to maintain a monopoly on power for over sixty years.

To say that there is a conspiracy in Cuba to maintain this situation is not too far off from from the truth. They have successfully deployed a mixture of bread, circuses and crucifixions (so to say) to maintain their control of the country, in a way that no other regional despot has managed to do.

Your rhetoric has no place in a rational debate.

The effects of multiple, organized parties, though, would provide a means for the broad voicing of discontent with the system, and providing pressure on the higher levels of the government. Multi-party elections, and the decriminalizing of opposition parties would, certainly help in this field.

Sure, if Cubans want to do it that way. I don't really care.

I never made the claim that Cubans cannot talk to foreign journalists, without threat to their own wellbeing, someone else might have, but I did not. I made the claim that expressing a hostile viewpoint to the Cuban government, especially when talking to foreign reporters, on the record, is likely to get one such a treatment. I shifted no goalposts, I'm have always been aiming at different goalposts.

I see what the problem is. You see, it was me who made the claim. I made the claim that Cubans can talk to foreign journalists without getting beaten up. I have since backed up my claims. Now, you have provided no evidence for your claim that "expressing a hostile viewpoint to the Cuban government, especially when talking to foreign reporters, on the record, is likely to get one such a treatment".

Do you have a source for that?

Why, so you can ignore it?

Why, so you can ignore it?

Did I ignore a source at some point?

Did I ignore a source at some point?

Your kind always does. Everytime someone brings to light some unsavory aspect of Cuba, your response is to plug your ears and scream, "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Your kind always does. Everytime someone brings to light some unsavory aspect of Cuba, your response is to plug your ears and scream, "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

My kind? Good grief...

I (.....) : Today at 9:14 AM.

C&P spam.

The poll fails because it has no "Cuba is fine as it is". Not to mention it is overly complicated.

Cuba has all the democracy it needs. The US should talk about democracy.

Bush is just continuing the policy of containing communism from the truman doctrine. In this case he smells blood in the water and is going in for the kill economically. While I often have a problem with the decisions of this government, this one doesn't trouble me one bit, the Cuban government has had this policy of jailing opponents to it's power for a really long time, and Bush is right, no one calls them on it. They are much more interested in what the US is doing down there, and seem to have turned a blind eye to the rest of the island.

So forty years of embargo and yet Cuba still stands.

Is it a case of the dirty commies or is it driven by companies, etc., that want the properties and assets they lost back?

So forty years of embargo and yet Cuba still stands.

Is it a case of the dirty commies or is it driven by companies, etc., that want the properties and assets they lost back?

To be fair, it was their properties and thier assets.

Bush pushes democracy for Cuba By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush chastised most other countries Friday for "a sad and curious pattern" of doing little to speak out against human rights and political abuses in Cuba. ...

I call complete hypocrisy on Bush's part, he used veto on the Waterboarding Bill, which would also have some impacts on human rights in Cuba.

If these sort of things are the excuse for bad relations, there's really no reason for us not to resume normal relations.

To be fair, it was their properties and thier assets.

How is this different then say the British and the US?

How is this different then say the British and the US?

It isn't really. The only real difference would be that the idea of property and international business holdings would have been more firmly entrenched.

P.S. I wasn't serious, the companies that invested in Cuba are SOL.

While I do not support the Cuban government, I do not support the embargo either, as it infringes upon Americans' rights to do with their property as they wish (specifically in relation to Cuban economic activities.) Closer ties through free exchange would do far more good for Americans and Cubans than intentionally impoverishing one group and unintentionally harming the other.

What exactly is "brave" about criticizing Cuba?

You know what? I'm so happy that at the time when for us in Poland the Solidarity movement was the only hope we had of seeing some change in our lives, the Internet was at the infant stage. Because I know that when here the skulls were caved in by police batons, when tanks stormed the striking miners, when you could not walk the streets of Warsaw without fear of being beaten and without smelling the acrid odor of tear gas, if I would open some distinguished internet forum to write about our plight, I would find people explaining to me how Reagan is dumb, wrong, fascist conservative who wants to blow the whole world to hell and how we have the elections and three parties to choose from, so there is democracy in Poland, in some form anyway, and how the reports are blown out of proportion, and how someone saw on the telly an interview with a Polish worker who seemed to be content so everything must be fine there.
You don't need much imagination to bend the reality and make it conform to your comfortable vision of the world. All it takes is seeing just the facts that are convenient. But sometimes the infinite flexibility of the human mind makes me sick.

Dale, sigue, dale más vuelta a la puta noria.

Can´t the US let Cuba be?

Oh .. and you better believe our ass is involved ... one way or the other ... with this Columbia shit.
US gives Columbia weapons from what I hear.

Im still waiting for Bush to push for democracy in the United States.

Do you have a source for that?

Or that?

Both are in sources you've posted.

Your rhetoric has no place in a rational debate.

Wait? Are you telling me that rhetoric, a tool designed to convince and sway, has no place in debate?


Sure, if Cubans want to do it that way. I don't really care.

It would seem that they would desire to do so, as since the decriminalization of the right to form political parties, they have. These parties are merely not permitted to campaign, or solicit membership.

I see what the problem is. You see, it was me who made the claim. I made the claim that Cubans can talk to foreign journalists without getting beaten up. I have since backed up my claims. Now, you have provided no evidence for your claim that "expressing a hostile viewpoint to the Cuban government, especially when talking to foreign reporters, on the record, is likely to get one such a treatment".

Given that official punishments, according to Reporters without Borders, which references the imprisonment of individuals for talking to media associated with the Cuban Diaspora, or the illegality of posting articles online that are critical of the state, I wouldn't find the previously referenced spontaneous reprisal to be incredible.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=367
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19335

It's also interested that RSF rates Cuba below Myanmar/Burma, the PRC, Uzbekistan, Laos and Somalia. That's not a distinction that I'd be happy to have. If anything, Cuba is a country that would seem to be dependent on the rigid control of information, and that if the government were to allow free flows of information, Cuban "socialism" would likely collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_press_freedom_index

The poll fails because it has no "Cuba is fine as it is". Not to mention it is overly complicated.

Cuba has all the democracy it needs. The US should talk about democracy.

None at all, eh?

So forty years of embargo and yet Cuba still stands.

Because it received massive assistance from the Soviet Union for the first thirty years of its existence, and managed to maintain rigid controls on information, unlike the Soviet Union, thus, permitting the personality cult of Castro to blame the entire situation on the evil Americans.

Is it a case of the dirty commies or is it driven by companies, etc., that want the properties and assets they lost back?

A hearty mix of both, at the start, then the addition of "Holy fuck, Castro wants the Russians to nuke us!" made it so that the bureaucratic inertia of the embargo would keep it trucking for decades, regardless of the original interests involved.

Both are in sources you've posted.

Then it would be a simple matter for you to find the information and quote it.

Your little conspiracytheory also ignores the fact that even if the voting is the only secret ballot part of the process, it would still make it impossible for the CDR to force the majority of the community to accept the candidacy. So even if the CDR was colluding with the perpetrators of these actos de repudio to force people to nominate only the CDR candidate, it would be easily possible for the voters to choose to not accept the candidate when it comes time to vote. And since it's a secret vote, the CDR would be unable to violently punish those who did not vote 'correctly'.

Wait? Are you telling me that rhetoric, a tool designed to convince and sway, has no place in debate?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Read up on the difference between rhetoric and dialectic.

It would seem that they would desire to do so, as since the decriminalization of the right to form political parties, they have. These parties are merely not permitted to campaign, or solicit membership.

That's great. It still proves my point that a multiparty system would not necessarily deal with the problems of the Cuban election process.

Given that official punishments, according to Reporters without Borders, which references the imprisonment of individuals for talking to media associated with the Cuban Diaspora, or the illegality of posting articles online that are critical of the state, I wouldn't find the previously referenced spontaneous reprisal to be incredible.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=367
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19335

It's also interested that RSF rates Cuba below Myanmar/Burma, the PRC, Uzbekistan, Laos and Somalia. That's not a distinction that I'd be happy to have. If anything, Cuba is a country that would seem to be dependent on the rigid control of information, and that if the government were to allow free flows of information, Cuban "socialism" would likely collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_press_freedom_index

You are completely correct that the Castro government has been one of the worst in the region in terms of journalistic freedom. But that still does not support your claim. Your sources clearly indicate that reporters critical of the Castro administration are targetted by the government or its supporters, but it does not say anywhere that private Cubans can not speak to foreign journalists without fear of intimidation by the government or its supporters.

Because it received massive assistance from the Soviet Union for the first thirty years of its existence, and managed to maintain rigid controls on information, unlike the Soviet Union, thus, permitting the personality cult of Castro to blame the entire situation on the evil Americans.

Do you have a source for the first bolded part? The wiki article you posted last time we discussed this was very vague on what support the Soviets gave, except for trade deals. Do you consider trade deals to be support? If that is the case, do you think that the USA supported apartheid by having trade deals with South Africa at the time?

And a source for the second bolded part?

A hearty mix of both, at the start, then the addition of "Holy fuck, Castro wants the Russians to nuke us!" made it so that the bureaucratic inertia of the embargo would keep it trucking for decades, regardless of the original interests involved.

I would agree. The continuation of the embargo is fueled by both of these myths (i.e. that Cubans 'stole' the assets of US corporations, and that Castro was about to nuke the USA), but is also perpetuated by the voting power of the Miami 'Cubans' in a swing state. The original interests are unimportant, as you said.

This is a perfect time in the posts for me to jump in.

The only reason or main reason a USA embargo has never worked is. After the Soviet Union and its eastern European empire fell apart. What saved the Cuban dictatorship government. Was Canadian, European Union trade, foreign investments, and over 2 million mostly Canadian and European tourists and diplomatic dialogue and Cuban American family remittances $.

It was around this time that the Cuban government decided to allow Cuban American family visits to thier familys in Cuba. So they could help thier relatives in Cuba with hard currency money $. But it was really to help the Cuban government with hard currency money $.

It was around this time that the Cuban government created the so called Dollar stores $. Legalized the USA $ Dollar $.

Cuban workers were paid in Pesos and had to buy certain needs in the so called $ Dollar stores sent by Cuban Americans family remittances $. In a currency they did not earn.

Now adays they can buy CUC convertible pesos $. But it was all financed by Cuban American Family Remittances $ Dollars $.

Cuban Americans send Cuban American family remittances Dollars $, or Euros.
Cuban citizens exchange them for CUC Pesos so they can buy many of their needs in so called CUC $ stores.

The Cuban government forced us and them to help Cuban relatives by helping the Cuban government not to help the Cuban people in Cuba.

Cuban citizens are paid in Pesos and have to buy most of their needs in CUC convertible pesos financed by Cuban American $ Dollars or Euros. Are not allowed to stay in the luxury hotels with or without hard Currency money $. Now do you all understand the nature of the Cuban government $?

Canadian & European foreign investors mostly in Tourism pay the Cuban government in dollars $ or Euros hard currency money. Cuban workers are then paid by the government in Pesos. At about 25 times less value $. Cuban workers exchange Pesos for CUC Pesos $ to buy certain or most needs.

This maybe be about to change. But the goal is for Foreing companys to pay more hard currency money to the Cuban government through the Cuban worker than they tax the Cuban workers who still have to exchange them for CUC Pesos. Now do you all understand the nature of the Cuban government $?

...
Cuban workers were paid in Pesos and had to buy certain needs in the so called $ Dollar stores sent by Cuban Americans family remittances $. In a currency they did not earn....

This directly conflicts with my observations when I was in Cuba.

I visited many shops that were only for Cubans, that were plentifully stocked with everything you need, and often with luxury items. All the prices were in Cuban pesos.

There were other stores that would sell to tourists and Cubans that sold mostly luxury items and a few staples. All the prices were in US dollars.

The Cuban stores were far, far less expensive, and supplied almost everything you could find in any supermarket in the developing world.

Then it would be a simple matter for you to find the information and quote it.

You read the sources, it ought to be easy enough for your to remember it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba

Here.

Your little conspiracytheory also ignores the fact that even if the voting is the only secret ballot part of the process, it would still make it impossible for the CDR to force the majority of the community to accept the candidacy. So even if the CDR was colluding with the perpetrators of these actos de repudio to force people to nominate only the CDR candidate, it would be easily possible for the voters to choose to not accept the candidate when it comes time to vote. And since it's a secret vote, the CDR would be unable to violently punish those who did not vote 'correctly'.

To start off, it's not a theory, it's a fact that the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution and the Rapid Response Brigades are notorious for intimidating those who speak out against the regime, and it's not a theory that these, along with other state controlled mass organizations are in control of the nominating process.

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250022006?open&of=ENG-CUB

Next up, this Amnesty International article links the CDR's to the Acts of Repudiation, and the Rapid Response Brigades. They are involved in these unacceptable actions, and their ability to influence individuals through threats of violence cannot be undermined.

It's interesting that arms of the Cuban government are closely involved in determining the single candidate permitted to run for office.


Further, as the OAS report from 1997 reports, the nominating conventions are dominated by the mass organizations, which are controlled by the Cuban government, in a way that labor unions and political clubs are not in free countries.

According to Wikipedia, 91% of voters cast ballots for a unified ticket, essentially, an approval of everyone on the ballot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_legislative_election%2C_2008

That hardly has the tenor of a truly free and open competitive election. That's an acclamation.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Read up on the difference between rhetoric and dialectic.

What do you want? A cold, mechanical dialectic? That is a ridiculous desire. This is debate, and rhetoric does have a place, debate has passion and emotion. Emotion and rhetoric illustrates and colors.

That's great. It still proves my point that a multiparty system would not necessarily deal with the problems of the Cuban election process.

The thing being, open and growing independent parties and unions lead to significant change in other states, with the classic example being Solidarity in Poland. If the Cuban electoral system were to have organizations that could challenge the status quo in an organized and disciplined fashion, maybe, just maybe, it would likely prove to have an impact.

Anyways, what harm could it do?


You are completely correct that the Castro government has been one of the worst in the region in terms of journalistic freedom. But that still does not support your claim. Your sources clearly indicate that reporters critical of the Castro administration are targetted by the government or its supporters, but it does not say anywhere that private Cubans can not speak to foreign journalists without fear of intimidation by the government or its supporters.

I am correct in that the Castro regime is the worst in the region, and damn close to being amongst the worst in the world.

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250022006?open&of=ENG-CUB

This article references the fact that private Cuban citizens are subject to AoR for expressing their views in public, given that, one can safely assume that, even though not explicitly mentioned, an equal result would develop from speaking to foreign press.

http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/OAS-Castillo/chapterv.cub.html






Do you have a source for the first bolded part? The wiki article you posted last time we discussed this was very vague on what support the Soviets gave, except for trade deals. Do you consider trade deals to be support? If that is the case, do you think that the USA supported apartheid by having trade deals with South Africa at the time?

And a source for the second bolded part?

This article discusses the early preferential trade status Cuba received from the USSR, including a market+20% sale price for sugar, further, $100 million US dollars worth of aid were made available to Cuba immediately.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-5850(196601)42%3A1%3C74%3ASEATC1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

A contemporary article, published in the New York Times cites the amount of yearly Soviet aid to Cuba as $5 billion US Dollars.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DD153AF931A25756C0A96E948260

And the wikipedia article on the Cuban Economy references a collapse of 35% of the Cuban economy after the fall of the USSR, as due to the loss of the East-bloc trading partners, and the loss of the sweet market+20% sale value on sugar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba

I would agree. The continuation of the embargo is fueled by both of these myths (i.e. that Cubans 'stole' the assets of US corporations, and that Castro was about to nuke the USA), but is also perpetuated by the voting power of the Miami 'Cubans' in a swing state. The original interests are unimportant, as you said.

Which is why the US needs to seriously reevaluate the embargo policy, and make our current trade with Cuba not an exception, but a permanent element of the relation between the states.

Well the big question is:

Does Cuba really deserve to become yet another political plaything in the big long list of nations exploited by capitalist democracy

At least Communist Cuba let the world know of its political prisoners, Democracy would involve them just disappearing like the KGB used to do

You read the sources, it ought to be easy enough for your to remember it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba

Here.

Okay, I asked you for two things; a source showing that the nominations are done through an entirely public process instead of through secret ballots, and a source showing that the CDRs are closely involved in overseeing and organizing the nominating process.

The wiki article has this to say:

Candidates for the National Assembly are chosen by Candidacy Commissions chaired by local trade union officials and composed of elected representatives of "mass organisations" representing workers, youth, women, students and farmers. The Candidacy Commissions produce slates of recommended candidates for each electoral district. The final list of candidates, one for each district, is drawn up by the National Candidacy Commission, taking into account criteria such as candidates’ popularity, merit, patriotism, ethical values and “revolutionary history.”

Funny how it doesn't seem to mention the CDRs at all, nor does it mention whether or not the candidacies are public or secret. Try again.

To start off, it's not a theory, it's a fact that the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution and the Rapid Response Brigades are in control of the nominating process.

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250022006?open&of=ENG-CUB

...

It's interesting that arms of the Cuban government are closely involved in determining the single candidate permitted to run for office.

You keep repeating this claim, but your link does not discuss the election process at all, and only mentions the CDR at the end as being in collusion with them. Meanwhile, I have demonstrated through logic why such a complicated conspiracy simply wouldn't work, even if the CDRs wished to influence elections in that way.

Further, as the OAS report from 1997 reports, the nominating conventions are dominated by the mass organizations, which are controlled by the Cuban government, in a way that labor unions and political clubs are not in free countries.

http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/OAS-Castillo/chapterv.cub.html


Your OAS link has over 100 paragraphs. Rather than having me read the entire article to find the part that supports your claim, do you think you could do that so that I don't have to? I had to do that already for your wiki article.

According to Wikipedia, 91% of voters cast ballots for a unified ticket, essentially, an approval of everyone on the ballot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_legislative_election%2C_2008

That hardly has the tenor of a truly free and open competitive election. That's an acclamation.

If there's one thing we can agree on, Andy, is that the elections in Cuba are decidedly not democratic, or if they are, they ahve so many problems that they essentially fail. I do not think any rational person, no matter how much they admire socialism, would define Cuban elections as truly free and open. I am more interested in using these debates as a method for clarifying to myself what does work in Cuba and what doesn't, than convincing people of any ideology.

What do you want? A cold, mechanical dialectic? That is a ridiculous desire. This is debate, and rhetoric does have a place, debate has passion and emotion. Emotion and rhetoric illustrates and colors.

I should have clarified that it does not work for me.

The thing being, open and growing independent parties and unions lead to significant change in other states, with the classic example being Solidarity in Poland. If the Cuban electoral system were to have organizations that could challenge the status quo in an organized and disciplined fashion, maybe, just maybe, it would likely prove to have an impact.

Anyways, what harm could it do?

None at all. But I would rather see the National Legislature sit more than twice a year and be independent of the Council of State, and have an accountable and elected Council of State for that matter, not to mention a judiciary independent of both. These would be far more important changes than simply having multiple parties. Especially since the Communist Party of Cuba isn't actually a party in the electoral sense.

I am correct in that the Castro regime is the worst in the region, and damn close to being amongst the worst in the world.

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250022006?open&of=ENG-CUB

This article references the fact that private Cuban citizens are subject to AoR for expressing their views in public, given that, one can safely assume that, even though not explicitly mentioned, an equal result would develop from speaking to foreign press.

As long as you're clear that you are making an assumption, and that I have provided a source that provides at least one example of a Cuban who did criticise the Cuban government to a foreign jounalist with impunity.

This article discusses the early preferential trade status Cuba received from the USSR, including a market+20% sale price for sugar, further, $100 million US dollars worth of aid were made available to Cuba immediately.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-5850(196601)42%3A1%3C74%3ASEATC1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

Not quite. The article lists a trade deal where sugar was sold to the Soviet at market prices and 20% was paid in US dollars, with the other 80% was in Soviet goods. Again, this was a business deal, not foregin aid. And those $100 million were a loan, and could only be spent on Russian goods. Again, this seems more like a business deal, with the Soviets appearing to use Cuba's precarious position to strengthen their own economy.

A contemporary article, published in the New York Times cites the amount of yearly Soviet aid to Cuba as $5 billion US Dollars.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DD153AF931A25756C0A96E948260

No, it cites an estimate by unnamed US officials.

United States officials estimate that each year the Soviet Union gives about $5 billion in total economic aid to Cuba, by far its largest client.

And the wikipedia article on the Cuban Economy references a collapse of 35% of the Cuban economy after the fall of the USSR, as due to the loss of the East-bloc trading partners, and the loss of the sweet market+20% sale value on sugar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba

As I said, you misread the sugar deal. It wasn't quite as 'sweet' as you make it out to be. And any economy would have trouble when they lose the vast majority of their trading partners. But again, it seems to be all business deals. There doesn't seem to be any indication of real foreign aid from the USSR to Cuba.


Which is why the US needs to seriously reevaluate the embargo policy, and make our current trade with Cuba not an exception, but a permanent element of the relation between the states.

I agree. The Cold War is over.

lol, you guys are just mad because President Bush is doing something good. Suck my penis, Democrats! We, Republicans, actually help different countries. Unlike you selfish pigs.