Fortsetzung: The US Embargo on Cuba
Alice Coulter
Promotion of Human Rights
In April 2001 the UN Commission on Human Rights censured Cuba for human rights abuses, and called on the government to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to provide the appropriate framework to guarantee the rule of law through democratic institutions and the independence of the judicial system.[17] Reports of human rights violations have also been issued by several international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.[18]
According to these institutions, the Cuban government’s human rights practices were generally arbitrary and repressive. Crimes such as "dangerousness", "enemy propaganda" and "contempt for authority", are defined in broad terms enabling flexibility in their use in the documented repression of political opposition. "The Cuban Criminal Code lies at the core of Cuba’s repressive machinery, unabashedly prohibiting non-violent dissent. .... Numerous Cuban laws explicitly penalize the exercise of fundamental freedoms while others, which are so vaguely defined as to offer Cuban officials broad discretion in their interpretation, are often invoked to silence the government’s critics".[19]
Thus, Cuba’s human rights situation can be viewed as falling beyond the limits of Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereby restrictions of fundamental rights are only permissible "for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society".[20] But are economic sanctions an appropriate tool for redressing this situation?
According to Human Rights Watch, the embargo is not a carefully calibrated policy intended for promoting human rights reform, but rather "a sledgehammer approach aimed at nothing short of overthrowing the government".[21] They claim that by providing a pretext for Castro’s repression, and alienating allies, the US embargo actually damages the potential for human rights reform. In addition, limitations placed on freedom of travel and association, codified within the Helms-Burton Law, violate Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty ratified by the US.
The view that strict economic sanctions alone will not promote changes in the human rights conditions of a country, is reflected in many countries’ chosen stance towards Cuba. Leading allies of the US, such as Canada and Mexico, have pursued policies of unconditional engagement with the Castro regime as a better way of promoting economic and political liberalisation in the island.[22] European leaders, while not reaching such levels of openness in their engagement with Cuba, have also stated that improvement in the human rights situation in Cuba should not be brought about by coercive measures.[23]
These distinct approaches may in part signify these countries’ desire to be independent of US policy in general, particularly in the case of Mexico and Canada, but they also demonstrate the widely held belief that economic sanctions are simply not an effective method for promoting human rights reform - indeed, in four decades of the embargo the human rights situation has experienced only minor changes, many of which can be attributed to factors outside US policy.[24]
There have also been complaints from various countries that the US embargo is itself a violation of human rights.[25] The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act placed restrictions on all trade between the US and Cuba, including the trade of food and medicines, in direct opposition to international humanitarian law stating that these essential provisions could not be used as weapons in international conflict.[26]
These disagreements between countries regarding the legality of US policy, and the subsequent range of positions towards Cuba coming from many of the major global powers, causes problems for the co-ordination of a coherent international policy. "Unfortunately, the huge divide between U.S. policy and that of Cuba’s major trading and investment partners has prevented the development of an effective, unified policy that could bring about change in Cuba".[27]
[17] UN Human Rights Commission resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.21) on the situation of human rights in Cuba, approved 18 April 2001.
[18] See Amnesty International Report 2000 http://www.amnesty.org and Human Rights Watch World Report 2001, "Cuba: Human Rights Developments,". http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/americas/cuba.html
[19] Human Rights Watch Report, Cuba’s Repressive Machinery, (1999). http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-01.htm
[20] Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
[21] HRW, Cuba’s Repressive Machinery.
[22] Mauricio A. Font, "Advancing Democracy in Cuba: The International Context" Queens College, City University of New York. http://www.soc.qc.edu/procuba/advancingdemocracy.html
[23] Belgium representative for the EU speaking at the debate on UN resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.21) on the situation of human rights in Cuba. http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/D55AE A8141016DEEC1256A330038F595?opendocument
[24] Such as the visit of Pope John Paul II to Cuba in 1998, and the visit’s subsequent effect on religious freedom in Cuba.
[25] UN Press Release, "Assembly Renews Call for End to united States Embargo Against Cuba,". http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/720257178 DAFA51CC1256B12003E83A0?opendocument
[26] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, The UN Charter, Geneva Convention, among others.
[27] HRW, Cuba’s Repressive Machinery. Fortsetzung: The US Embargo on Cuba
Druckversion
Seite empfehlenbookmarken bei...
