Intellectual Freedom in Cuba

On 8 May 2003 the IFLA Committee on Free Access to Information and Freedom 
of Expression (FAIFE) issued a media release on Intellectual Freedom in 
Cuba:

"Once again, IFLA urges the Cuban government to eliminate obstacles to 
access to information imposed by its policies", says the Chair of the 
IFLA/FAIFE Committee Mr Alex Byrne

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) 
and its Committee of Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of 
Expression (IFLA/FAIFE) expressed their deepest concerns today about the 
arrest, trial and long prison sentences given to Cuban political dissidents 
in recent weeks.

According to Human Rights Watch reports approximately 80 people have been 
arrested and detained "including prominent dissidents, human rights 
activists, independent journalists, independent unionists and directors of 
independent libraries".

The Cuban Library Support Group (CLSG) would like to point out that none of 
these so-called “directors of independent libraries” are either directors, 
independent or librarians. They are paid agents of the American government, 
supported, funded and supplied by the US Interests Section in Havana.  For 
more background information about these arrests, please see the following 
briefing paper.

Cuba Solidarity Campaign
BRIEFING PAPER – SPRING 2003

The recent arrests and trials of some 65 Cuban oppositionists has caused an 
international media furore that has been fuelled by the reactions of western 
governments and some intellectuals of international standing. The general 
impression that has been presented is that the men in question were jailed 
for “merely opposing the government.” In addition, the recent executions of 
three hi-jackers under Cuba’s anti-terrorism laws have drawn condemnation 
and serious disquiet from many quarters.

This Briefing Paper seeks to clarify certain inaccuracies that have been 
widely disseminated. In relation to the arrests of the oppositionists and 
the recent executions, serious, highly relevant facts have been omitted and 
any objective political context has been clouded by disinformation, making a 
rational judgment on the situation virtually impossible. CSC is extremely 
concerned about the deterioration in US – Cuba relations. Progressive people 
throughout the world are rightly united in their opposition to the use of 
the death penalty and it is to be regretted that conditions have been 
created in which extreme reactions have been provoked in Cuba. For 44 years, 
Cuba has suffered the loss of 3,478 of its citizens from numerous acts of 
terrorism, invasions, assassinations, assassination attempts and biological 
warfare, launched with impunity from US soil. It is against this background 
that recent events must be viewed.

In addition, CSC also condemns the economic and political blockade imposed 
by successive US administrations on the island nation for the past 44 years, 
causing an estimated $70 billion damage to Cuba's economy, and inflicting 
unnecessary suffering on the most vulnerable in Cuban society. It is the 
conviction of the Cuban government that the recent increase in hostilities 
is a worrying extension of 44 years of aggressive US policy which could 
serve as a pretext to military action against Cuba. It is within this 
context that recent events must be considered.

1) Why has Cuba jailed 65 so-called ‘dissidents’?

The ‘dissidents’ who were arrested, tried and imprisoned in April 2003 were 
charged and convicted of conducting “mercenary activity in the pay of a 
foreign enemy power.” They were found guilty of receiving sustained 
financial assistance, gifts and equipment and of having been recruited by 
the head of the US Interests Section in Havana, James Cason, to carry out 
counter-revolutionary activities.

James Cason, an extremely rightwing and outspoken opponent of the Cuban 
government was posted to the US Interests Section in Havana by the Bush 
administration, with a specific brief to support and extend the Cuban 
opposition movement. This is an activity that is in breach of his diplomatic 
status, under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The US 
State Department labels these activities “outreach” operations. However, 
under the US code, similar “outreach” by foreign diplomats in the US could 
result in criminal prosecution and a 10-year prison sentence for anyone who 
“agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or 
control of a foreign government or official” (Title 18, section 951 of the 
Unites States Code).

All of those who were jailed were people who had been invited to James 
Cason’s official residence for meetings and parties on numerous occasions 
since his appointment in September 2002. Mr. Cason had been repeatedly 
warned of the consequences of his actions before the arrests were finally 
made.

2) Did the ‘dissidents’ receive a fair trial?

All 65 of the “dissidents” were tried in an open court. Only foreign 
journalists and foreign diplomats were denied access to the courts. Members 
of the public, including the defendants’ families were admitted to watch the 
proceedings.

All of the defendants had lawyers. 44 of them chose their own lawyer to 
defend them while the others were given court appointed defence lawyers free 
of charge.

They were convicted mainly on the evidence of 12 of their own number who 
revealed themselves to have been agents of Cuban security who had 
infiltrated their organizations (hence the distinction between the figure of 
65 dissidents as opposed to the popular figure of 77, which includes Cuban 
“double agents”). These agents provided substantial evidence relating to the 
charges against the defendants.

All the defendants were given leave to appeal their sentences as is provided 
by the law and appeal hearings are pending.

3) What are the circumstances surrounding the hi-jackings?

Concurrent with the provocations emanating from the US Interests Section in 
Havana, there has been a serious crisis arising because of a sudden spate of 
hi-jackings by criminals attempting to illegally migrate to the US.

The Cuban government has revealed that the numbers of visas being granted by 
the Bush administration for Cubans to leave the island legally has been 
drastically reduced, and is accusing the US of deliberately creating the 
conditions in which people will steal boats and planes to get to the US. It 
is evident that the U.S. Interests Section has virtually stopped granting 
visas to Cubans applying for admission to the United States. Under the 1995 
U.S.-Cuba Migratory Agreement, the U.S. agreed to grant 20,000 entry visas 
to the U.S. annually. The purpose of the 1995 agreement was to assure a 
safe, legal and orderly immigration process. However, from October 2002 to 
Feb. 2003, the first five months of the accord's calendar year, only 505 
visas were granted to Cubans wishing to enter the U.S.

Furthermore, upon arriving in the US, those who have successfully hi-jacked 
air or sea craft, often having used guns, grenades and knives to threaten 
pilots or crew, have not been returned to Cuba to face trial. Instead they 
have in most cases been released without charge, or given bail.

This lenient treatment has therefore encouraged other Cubans to carry out 
such acts. Between March 19 and April 25 this year there were no less than 
29 hi-jacking attempts in Cuba. Immediately preceding the hijacking of the 
ferry by the three executed individuals, there were two hi-jackings of 
passenger aircraft with foreign tourists, women and children on board. In 
the case of the ferry hi-jacking of 2nd April 2003, which resulted in the 
executions of three high-jackers, the ferry in question was hi-jacked at 
1:30 am in Havana Harbour with 29 passengers on board.

The highjacking seriously endangered the lives of Cuban men, women and 
children and four foreign tourists. Eventually the hi-jackers were 
overpowered and arrested. The Cuban authorities took the decision to try the 
ferry hi-jackers with terrorism and endangering human life. The maximum 
penalty for this under Cuban law is death. Until these executions Cuba had 
placed a moratorium on the use of the death penalty that had been in place 
for four years.

The hi-jackers were all tried, again in the presence of their families and 
the public. They all had defence lawyers to represent them. Their appeal was 
heard by the Supreme Court and was upheld. Then, in accordance with the law, 
the Council of State, the Cuban Cabinet, met to hear the final appeal and 
make the decision whether or not to end the moratorium on the death penalty 
in this case.

The US has subsequently issued warnings to Cuba that any further hi-jackings 
from its territory would be regarded as a threat to US National Security. 
The White House says it is reviewing Cuba policy.

The Cuban government has taken the view in the context of the geopolitical 
situation following the invasion of Iraq that it too could face an attack 
from the United States.

They believe that the US government is attempting to provoke another 
migration crisis similar to that of 1994, in order to provide a pretext to 
attack the island. Regrettably, the Cuban President Fidel Castro has stated 
that the country’s moratorium on the death penalty has been suspended as a 
deterrent to others thinking of hi-jacking vessels. He said that this step 
was taken reluctantly to prevent a war.

4) What are the possible ramifications of this “crisis”?

On May 20th president Bush is to make a policy speech on Cuba and it is 
likely that he will announce further measures to tighten the economic 
blockade on Cuba.

He will possibly announce stringent limits on the money that Cuban Americans 
can send their families in Cuba, he may restrict flights to Cuba from the US 
and he may stop all trade between the two countries. The notorious right 
wing anti-Castro Cuban American organisations in Miami have already called 
for the Bush administration to invade Cuba and large public demonstrations 
have taken place under the campaigning slogan “Today Iraq – Tomorrow Cuba”. 
USAID has announced that it will grant one million dollars to the University 
of Miami’s so-called “Cuba Transition Project” aimed at planning for the 
privatisation of all services in “a post-Castro Cuba”.

The State Department has also retained Cuba’s inclusion on its list of 
state-sponsors of terrorism despite the absence of any evidence or 
information to support this accusation, an accusation utterly refuted by 
Cuba. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked recently whether 
there were plans to invade Cuba, stated “not for the time being.”

In addition, last week, Hans Hertell, the U.S. ambassador to the Dominican 
Republic, said the removal of Saddam Hussein could serve as a "good example" 
for regime change in Cuba.

Across Europe, the UK, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands are calling for a 
toughening of Europe’s stance towards Cuba. There is an overall climate of 
opinion being whipped up that is apparently attempting to isolate Cuba. 
There was a move to have Cuba censured by the Organization of American 
States, and the US called for Cuba to be removed from the UN Commission of 
Human Rights. Both moves were defeated.

The extremely worrying noises and actions emanating from the US 
administration reinforce the urgent need for the broadest possible campaign 
to be built to counter US rhetoric and aggression, in order to ensure that 
Cuba’s right to sovereignty and self-determination are recognized and upheld 
by the international community.

More information available from CSC website
www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk

John Pateman
Cuban Library Support Group
[log in to unmask]

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile