From: ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Human Rights in Cuba
Date: 2 Jan 93 16:38:26 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

Happy 1993 Jeremy,

I would like to make some additional comments to your articles on Cuba:

>HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LEGITIMACY OF A SOCIAL SYSTEM

>Further observations on beating up dissidents, life
>expectancy, and other matters.



>Both of us condemn violence against dissidents.  But if you wish
>to imply that Cuba is far worse than any other country, I repeat:

        >> As Gilberto points out, however, you'd likely be
        >> "desaparecido y muerto" in many other countries

Unfortunately, I have never implied that Cuba was "far worse" than any other 
country, I simply asserted that it was a totalitarian dictatorship in which it 
citizens were deprived of the most basic human rights.  I also see that is it 
*violence* against cuban dissidents which you condemn and not the variety of 
non violent form of oppression which exist on the island, the lack of freedom 
of expression and association to name a few.  I know very well that in the same 
manner which you have condemned the violence which has been used against 
dissidents, you will do likewise with other forms of opression, so I am just 
clarifying your statement.

>This is not by any stretch of the imagination a "justification" for
>Cuba's security forces beating up a dissident.  It is *you* who
>choose selectively, singling out Cuba for beating up dissidents, when
>any number of Central and Latin American democracies regularly *kill*
>people.  Where are you for the teachers and nurses who were raped
>and murdered by death squads in El Salvador?

I have never "singled out" Cuba, I just happen to talk about cuban issues 
without mixing them up with other dictatorships and repressive regimes 
throughtout Latin America, so that Mr. Castro's crimes aren't diluted amongst 
other culprits of humand rights abuses.  What strikes me as intersting is that 
every time I send a notice of human rights abuses in Cuba comparisons with 
other dictatorships immediately sprout and no mention is made about the details 
of the case in question, as if *implying*:  well, it could be worse so don't 
complain...

>You claim that death squads are running around Cuba:

        > Jeremy, my posting had nothing to do with how "good" the
        > Cuban government was, it had to to with the government
        > sponsored death squads that are roaming the streets of
        > havanna ....

>Death squads in Havana?  Really?  In what official source has
>your information been published?  The activities of Salvadoran
>death squads have been regularly reported by the New York Times,
>Newsweek, Time, Amnesty International, and many other
>organizations.  I expect your sources are equally impeccable.

Well in the NY Times clip which originated this series of postings, it was 
mentioned that Mr. Sanchez was clobbered by a government coordinated mob wich 
almost took his life and forced the government to hospitalize him in order to 
avert his death and be exposed to an international outcry.  It so happens to be 
that Mr. Sanchez averted the death encountered by others who have never been 
able to lead known human rights organizations in the island.  The so called, 
"terrorists" who were sumarrily executed are a prime example of the modus 
operandi of the government death squads.

        > ... these facist mobs, the friends of Castro on this net,
        > including yourself

>Geez, first they're Communist, now they're Fascist.  History 101
>will tell you the two social systems are rather different.

Why different?  It so happens to be that the differences between both have 
been more ideological than practical, since Stalin's death camps are easily 
compared with Hitler's crematoriums. So, I don't see why you worry so much that 
I refer to the Havanna government as "facist" and "communist" at the same time, 
especially when it is run by a "Communist" Party and at the same time has a 
constitucion which states that it is "nationalist" and "socialist" at the same 
time.

>As to my being a "friend of Castro," I never said anything of
>the sort.  It's something you are making up out of thin air.
>I believe Castro served his historical role and should have retired
>from politics years ago.  

Sure, Kim Il Sung, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, and Petan served their historical 
roles and should have been retired much earlier too.

>So I am certainly not a "friend of Castro,"
>any more than you are a "friend of Jorge Mas Canosa" (unless you happen
>to be, in which case my analogy is wrong).  I am critical of
>human rights abuses wherever they occur, whether in Cuba, El
>Salvador, or  the US.  My definition of human rights, however,
>is far more inclusive than yours.

>Let me state clearly where our differences lie:  you say that human
>rights abuses exist in Cuba.  I completely agree with you -- and I
>agree they are systematic and deserving of strong condemnation.
>But they also exist in the US -- in case you haven't noticed,
>black men are beaten up by racist cops every day in some US cityr.
>It's pretty systematic -- and officially condoned.
>Just replay any of Los Angeles police chief Darryl Gates's news
>conferences regarding his views on the Rodney King beating case.

No, no, no!!!  Let me reformulate this last comparison.  In the U.S. such 
racism is condemned and corrective and punitive measures are taken onces it is 
known that racism is operating.  Mr. Gates is no longer police chief, and the 
suspects of beating Mr. King await a new trial, so I, don't see how in hell you 
can compare our judicial system, substantiated with a collection of civil 
rights which are guarded as nowhere else in the planet (we even let the KKK 
place a cross right by a Jewish Shrine), with that of Cuba, where you don't 
even have the opportunity file a complaint for human rights abuses and the writ 
of habeas corpus is non existent for those who have been oficially kidnapped.  
Any self respecting member of the ACLU will be able to compare the human rights 
abuses of the Cuban government with those of our own.  In fact, the ACLU would 
be in prison if they happened to practice law in Cuba.

>Where we differ is that you deny *any* legitimacy to the Cuban social
>and political system.  

I absolutely agree with you on this one.

>By focussing on health care, I am not trying
>to "avoid" the issues you have raised -- as I've already stated, no
>decent person condones the beating of unarmed political dissidents.
>I focus on health as an extension of your own line of argumentation,
>namely taking human rights as a measure of the legitimacy of a social
>system.


>HEALTH AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

I think Ray Ravelo and his family has spoken plenty on this subject.  But, for 
the moment, let us assume you are right.  Let us assume that Cuba has taken the 
place of the USSR as the maximal emulators of Dr. Beverly Crusher in Star Trek, 
and that they guarantee paternally everbody's health just as we do here in the 
states with 97% of our population. It so happens to be that in the event in 
which your assumption holds true, your entire defense of the Cuban government 
ignores the fact that health care is not the ONLY human right.  In fact, 
healthy, not cancer stricken, Soviet citizens were the ones who were crushed by 
Red Army tank in defense of something much more "basic" than the ability to 
visit the local veterinary doctor: freedom.  Everywhere in which the so called 
"basic" human rights as "health" and "education" have been allegedly given to 
the masses, proletarian revolts have taken place to bring down the incumbent 
communist  dictaroships, IN SPITE of the alleged marvels of Ben Casey 
communists.  So, as you see Jeremy,  what good is it to be healthy if you have 
no freedom in which to employ your alleged health?  What is worse: the people 
of Cuba are entirely out of a process which decides whether to priotize in 
health, or say, food, for instance.  They are simply told: you will become a 
"doctor" you will become a clerk, ...

>This is evidence that Cuba is a failed society?

What is at issue is not the "failure" of "society" but rather the 
implementation of basic human rights.  Oceania in Orwell's 1984, had better 
health care and "eductation" than all of Latin America, yet is had the most 
repressive regime ever concieved of.  So, as you see, you are confusing 
material wealth with human rights.  It is as if one would say the way to get 
human rights for homeless is to get them a home, when anybody could tell you  
that jews lived in homes during WWII albeit were nearly erradictaded from the 
entire continent.

Were your claim about the backwardness of Cuban health even remotely
true, it would have shown up in the epidemiology long ago.  Where
are the low birthweight babies who didn't get milk?  Where is the
declining fertility rate from malnourished pregnant women?  You have to
have facts to back up your arguments.  You claim that my
>Let's talk about these party bosses for a minute.  Like you, I feel
>that it's wrong for certain people to have access to the highest
>quality health care when others don't.  But surely the US is no
>paragon of equitable access to health care.  We have a "fee-for-service"
>system where money, rather than party connections, is the factor
>that divides society.  Let's apply your statement to the US health care
>system, changing a couple of phrases:  change "party bosses" to "wealthy
>white men" and "military hospitals" to "the highest quality private
>medicine" and you have:

>        "Moreover, it is a well known fact that wealthy white men
>         have access to the highest quality private medicine"

>Using commutative logic, we have come up with a most interesting
>result -- both Cuba and the US appear to have inequities in their
>health care systems.  Both societies are imperfect -- what a shocking
>result.  

Of course they are imperfect.  The problem is that the "socialist" fan club 
claims that everybody is treated en par for ideological purity, when in fact 
Cuba is a class system.  I'm not againsta a class system, I'm against those who 
deny that such a system is in place in Cuba, or do nothing to expose it.

>Does this mean that neither has any legitimacy in the eyes
>of its people?

Of course it doesn't, but given the lated incident in which a Cuban pilot 
diverted his plane to Miami, it seems the Cuban government has lost most of its 
legitimacy while ours retains most of it.  Of the 40 passengers in the Cubana 
aircraft only 4 requested to be returned to Cuba, in spite of being among those 
privileged Cuban who can fly abroad.

>Just as I am against party bosses having special privileges, I am also
>against wealthy white men having the best when tens of millions of Americans
>have no health insurance of any kind and are bankrupted by any serious 
>illness.

Well, at least we have something in common: we both want universal health care 
without having to live under a dictatorship.

>WHY IS HEALTH IMPORTANT?  WHO CARES?

>Why do I spend so much time on health?  Because it is the ultimate
>window on to a society.  A society where health indicators are
>declining is failing its people.  Conversely, one that is raising
>them is doing something right.  

I don't think that health is the "ultimate window" to a society.  In  1940 
Germans were very healthy and had acess to health care, yet Germany was the 
most inmoral and cruel society in the planet.  So I guess you should go back to 
the drawing board and look for some other variable which indicates social 
health other than human health.

>You may believe we have the best health care system in the world
>but President-elect Clinton has called it a system in crisis.
>Thiry-seven million people have no health insurance of any kind.

All of which can get free health care at their municipal hospital...

>Most of the unemployed have no medical insurance because insurance
>is based on your job.  I don't know what your "97%" access means:
>sure you have "access" to health care in the US, you just have
>to pay an enormous amount for it -- not difficult if you're
>rich, not so great if you're middle-class or poor.

No, no, I don't know if you ever heard of things Medical and Medicare, but 
since you think health is the thermometer of social success you should dig into 
our own health system a bit more and you will be surprised at how much welfare 
is built into our system...  When Clinton says health is in crisis, he simply 
reflects that the costly health care system is going to "bankrupt" the Federal 
Government, which has to pay health bills which employers don't pay and which 
insurance companies don't regulate. 

>Also, the US is well behind other countries in some of the most
>basic health indicators, such as infant mortality.  

Again, it the price of freedom.  If we would implement a dictatorship a la 
Castro we would be able to arrest and sequester drugdealers without giving them 
access to trials and lawyers, so our crack babies are propping up our infant 
mortality.  Instead we rather give everybody the right to a lawyer and place 
some basic responsabilities on the individual (e.g. the consumption of alcohol) 
instead of cracking down on every suspect, jailing homosexuals and HIV patients 
a la Castro, or gasing our junkies.  It seems nobody want's to know the meaning 
of RESPONSABILITY nowdays.

>We rank
>somewhere around 18th in the world.  This is

        "... the best system in the world"

>and we're not even in the top 10 in infant mortality?!  Give me a break.

Yeah, I'll give you one, but remember we are #1 in liberty of expression, 
association, press, equal protection under law....

>As Bill Clinton says, "We can do better than that."

Of course we will, but not by castrofying our Federal Government.


Edelmiro