Published on Thursday, March 27, 2008
By Sir Ronald Sanders
At a recent conference that I attended, a minister of one of the newly
elected Caribbean governments expressed concern about human rights
violations in Cuba.
Even though the conference was subject to "Chatham House rules" – that
is, nothing said at the conference could be attributed to any of the
speakers – I was surprised that the minister made the statement. It was
the first time in my decades of involvement in matters related to the
Caribbean that I had heard any serving government minister, except
Jamaica's Edward Seaga (whose government broke diplomatic relations with
Cuba in October 1981) express disquiet about any aspect of the Cuban
government's human rights record.
Sir Ronald Sanders is a business
executive and former Caribbean
diplomat who publishes widely
on small states in the global
community. Reponses to:
ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com
Greater importance has been placed by many Caribbean governments on the
assistance that they have been given by Cuba particularly scholarships
for their students and doctors and nurses for their hospitals.
It will be interesting to see if the remarks of the minister are
actually repeated publicly. If they are, it would mark a sea change in
relations with the Cuban government; a change that the Cuban government
would dislike but which is overdue.
Cuba is not a normal country. The decades-old trade embargo by the US
government and the enormous amount of money that it spends on pumping
anti-government propaganda into Cuba as well as financing political
activity, make Cuba abnormal. In this context, the paranoia of the Cuban
government with regard to dissent is understandable.
But, however, understandable the paranoia is, repressing dissent should
not be acceptable.
People all over the world should have the right to express their
disagreement with government policies including through marches and
demonstrations. It is up to governments to learn how to manage dissent;
not to try to stifle it by suffocating human and civil rights.
To the extent that there is a discernible and common Caribbean society,
it is one that has been fashioned in resistance to slavery, indentured
labour, exploitation and denial of political rights. There is no
Caribbean country that did not experience authoritarianism and none that
did not see succeeding generations rise up against it.
In most Caribbean countries, governments have to manage dissent; in some
cases they even have to manage the desire for separation as in the case
of Tobago from Trinidad, Barbuda from Antigua and Nevis from St Kitts.
The notion that any Caribbean government could stamp out religious
affiliation, political opposition or break away factions by trampling on
civil and human rights would be anathema to most Caribbean societies.
Governments that try it would not survive very long – freedom has been
too hard achieved for Caribbean societies to permit its erosion.
So, if other Caribbean governments have to uphold human and civil rights
in this way, why shouldn't the Cuban government? And, why should
Caribbean governments accept the requirement to respect human and civil
rights themselves but not require it of the Cuban government?
A similar situation now exists in relation to the Peoples Republic of
China which has diplomatic relation with all but five Caribbean
countries that now tie themselves to Taiwan.
The world's media has been replete with coverage of Chinese security
forces brutally putting down rioting in Tibet. The Tibetans see
themselves as different from the Chinese culturally and spiritually, and
they deeply resent absorption by China. In this sense, the claims they
make are no different from claims made in the Caribbean by Tobagonians
in relation to Trinidad, Barbudans in relation to Antigua, or Nevisians
in relation to St Kitts.
Many want full separation from China, but the spiritual leader of Tibet,
the Dali Lama, has said that he is willing to concede independence for
Tibet and control of its foreign policy and defence in exchange for more
autonomy and religious freedom.
The desire for autonomy exists despite the fact that the Chinese
government poured money into infrastructural development in Tibet where
the economy grew by 14% last year, 2% higher than China's 12% national
average. And, while there has been an influx of Han Chinese, Tibetans
have benefited economically. The fact is that the Tibetans place greater
value on spiritual freedom and greater autonomy than on Chinese
cultivated economic improvement.
In the Caribbean, governments came to terms with giving greater autonomy
to parts of their states that wanted to secede. Thus, Tobago has its own
local government with a high level of autonomy as does Barbuda, and the
government of Nevis actually forms part of the administration of the
federal state of St Kitts-Nevis. There is always tension in these
relationships but they are resolved by negotiation, not by suppression.
Against this history of tolerance, respect for human and civil rights,
and the willingness to enshrine in constitutions the right to autonomy
of homogenous groups, Caribbean countries should be telling China in
clear terms that its policy of repression in Tibet is wrong.
At the moment, the biggest fear that China has is a boycott of the
Olympic Games that are scheduled to start at eight minutes past eight in
the evening of eighth day of the eighth month of 2008.
It is most unlikely that Caribbean governments would threaten a boycott
of the games as have the leaders of some countries, such as France's
Nicolas Sarkozy.
Governments of small Caribbean countries would not wish to incur the
wrath of China which is now a significant aid donor to many of them.
And, that position is understandable particularly as not even the George
W Bush administration of the US has even hinted at a boycott of the
games, notwithstanding the curious claim of Venezuela's President Hugo
Chavez, that the US is promoting violence in Tibet and is trying to
"sabotage" the Olympics.
Not indulging in ineffectual grandstanding with Cuba and China over
their human and civil rights issues is one thing, but telling the two
governments, as friends, that they should respect human and civil rights
including dissent, is the least that governments of freedom-loving
Caribbean countries should do. After all Caribbean governments would be
asking these governments to do nothing more than establish and uphold
standards that they are expected to follow themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment