so its ok for the US to abuse human rights, ignore all international law, foster CIA sponsored terrorist activity in nations seeking democracy(venezuela), and go to a country, blow some kids up, and take all that country's oil.

i'm against all abuses of human rights whether that be by America or cuba.

you right wing really need to stop condemning others while you support it all around the world.

What a collection of hypocrites! Condemning Cuba, China, etc. while the U.S. terrorises, dominates and impoverishes the world!

True, China, Cuba and many other nations need to stop violating human rights, but the U.S. is the "worst of the worst" to paraphrase one of its fascist leaders when it committs BY FAR the lion's share of abuses worldwide, both inside and outside its claimed borders!

I really do feel terrorised, dominated and impoverished by the US.

Odd really. Castro has to execute people who are trying to get out of Cuba for the US. If the US is so terrible, why are the Cubans trying to escape there?

The reason, dear Septic, is that Cuba is poor. It is poor 'cos of a 45-year illegal blockade by the US.

It is also because the CIA bombards the island with propaganda about how spanky life in the "free" US is and funds so-called "pro-democracy" groups to destabilise Castro's regime.

A better question would be How come most Cubans still support socialism in their country in the face of such a powerful adversary?

(Clue: The lowest infant mortality rate in the region*, a comprehensive healthcare and education system unknown in the rest of Latin America/the Caribbean and the unique feat of being truly independent from the arch-superpower might have something to do with it.)

* And lower than in Washington!

Victory to the Cuban state! Death to all imperialist puppets and lapdogs!! The reason the Cuban state needs to act in an authoritarian way is because the CIA is constantly trying to destabilise the government and install a US 'democratic' puppet state. It is not a 'natural' situation that Cuba is in, it is blockaded by the US. It cannnot function like any other state. This is the reason that the crackdowns on so called 'pro-democracy' activists are taking place. These 'pro-democratic' activists are really 'pro-US' puppets. When people talk of human rights, it is important to remember the situations that all the different countries are in. The reason there are so many human rights abuses in third world countries is because the third world countries have crushing debts to pay to the WTO/IMF which causes the governments to use extreme measures to carry on with these repayments. They all know that if they should stop repayments, than the armed wing of the IMF, NATO will come in and bomb the country and justify its campaign of destruction on the poor human rights record of the country. It is a qualitatively different thing for a poor country to break human rights than it is for a rich one. the countries are in different situations. the poor countries are being besieged from all sides and are trying to survive, the rich ones like the US break human rights to oppress and humiliate. Alongside other poor countries, Cuba stands out as a strong and proud country with better public facilities that the UK. If you really care about the poor of the world, and believe in a better future, than defend Cuba and its gains. vive le revolucion.

Illegal blockade? If one country doesn't want to trade with another, that's its problem.

Most Cubans still support Socialism? How do you know that? Dissidents are executed or locked away. When have they had a chance in the last 42 years to say whether or not they want Castro as their leader?

I quote:
"In all, nearly 80 people were detained, including such prominent figures as Raúl Rivero, the poet and journalist, and Héctor Palacios, one of the leaders of Cuba's pro-democracy movement. "
and
"A total of 75 detainees were convicted, receiving sentences of up to 28 years of imprisonment. The cumulative total of the sentences was a mind-boggling 1,454 years. There was not a single acquittal."

And people talk about the lack of civil rights in the US?

Sceptic is obviously a US mouthpiece. If you support the US over Cuba than you are clearly an imperialist of some sort, and if you justify the blockade than you are clearly not a friend of the Cuban people, who have certainly suffered from it. Shame on you, truly, shame on you if you support the US over Cuba. If you support the US than you are an enemy not only of the Cuban people but of all oppressed people. I ask you, Sceptic, do you wish to see a pro-us neoliberal regime in Cuba? Is this what you want? Is this the best for the Cuban people and the world? Long live Castro, long live Chavez, Victory to FARC, ELN, and any other forces which try to serve the interests of the common people of latin america. The US has no moral authority to tell anyone anything, it only has military might. The crimes committed by the US and its puppets in Chile are not forgotten. If you stand with the US with BP texaco Pinochet etc, than you can go to hell.

I've been accused of most things on this site. Now a mouthpiece of the US. Ye Gods, it doth astonish me that people are incapable of believing impossible to held any view other than their own is to a stooge, a mouthpiece, deluded, brainwashed by Murdoch and his minions. Get a life!

Moral authority? Castro has no moral authority. He took power by force. He has held power by force for 42 years. He has never been elected to any form of democratic office in his life. He jails those who ask for democracy. And the ultimate in moral bankruptcy: he shoots people who try to escape his regime. That is barbaric. There is an outcry on this forum when the UK tried to deport asylum seekers. We don't shoot them if they want to go.

And one thing you can say about Bush: he will not be President in 5 years time. He will have had his two terms in office. {And please don't try to give me any guff about how he will take over in a coup etc etc ...]

And did I ever say I wanted Cuba to be the same as America? I would like Cubans to decide what happens in Cuba - something they have not had the chance to do in 42 years. What is Castro afraid of that he does not allow a free and fair vote?

You would defend Bush??? How low can you go?? Bush may not be here in five years, but the powers that put him in will be. The US ruling class will still be in power, whatever the President. Do you doubt this? is there democracy in the US? Did Cuba bomb Iraq? I need hardly tell people of the crimes commited by the US, the current assult on Iraq for one. I am sure i do not need to tell you of the record of US involvement in destabilising various Latin American regimes.How many people did Pinochet kill? Who supported Pinochet? Answer: The US ruling class of which Bush is the current figurehead. And you seriously think that the US has moral authority over Castro??? Think internationally, the US is the greatest abuser of human rights. Castro, whatever faults he may have, which in all honesty are not great, stands up to US imperialism, the greatest evil in the world. Do you doubt this fact? Castro is loved by the majority of the Cuban people, apart from the former Cuban ruling class or mafia who resent their power being curtailed. People all over Latin America look on Cuba as a bastion of light in darkness. If you would defend the US ruling class over Cuba, you are an apologist for US imperialism.

pity you don't read what I wrote before replying. Where is any defence of Bush? All that I said is that he won't be President in 5 years time. UNlike Castro - unless he dies or someone shoots him first.

Now: read the main article. It is not about Bush or America. It is a UN report [you know the UN? Very highly thought of on this forum] on Human Rights Abuses in Cuba.

If Castro is loved by the majority of Cuban people, then why:

(i) does he shoot people trying to leave the country;

(ii) imprison dissidents?

(iii) not allow free and fair elections?

The three greatest evils in modern times were Hitler's Germany, Tojo's Japan and Stalin's Russia. Now tell me: which country was most instrumental in removing these evils?

Who is Zorro? He is probably unemployed. He is probably an ex-student. He probably needs to get a job.
Who is Zorro? He probably dresses in black, thinks Stalin was so cool, and listens to Mahler while reading Schopenhauer.
Who is Zorro? Probably the kinda guy who doesn't buy the drinks. Probably the kinda guy who moves into your house and doesn't pay any rent.
Zorro you have been unmasked! GET A JOB!

Did you ever asked what cubans want? Did you asked to the cubans living in Florida what they think about living in US?
Castro replaced Batista with a revolution. Before going to socialism Castro and Guevara asked support of US for a democratic revolution. Obviously US government refused (mafia and american corporations were loosing capitals). Do you think cubans want to return back to the past?
It is very diffult to say that US get rid of great evils as you say. Russia destroyed Germany and Hitler. In any case US didn't destroyed the great evils, after the war it was employed a lot of SS and nazists. US never touch Franco (Spain), it helped to re-instate fascism in Italy (when fascism was already gone thank to Italians), and what about Greece? Didn't British soldiers killed and destroy communists and Communist Party?
I am not Castro supporter, as anarchist I am against any form of governments.
But I have to admit that, in a capitalist economic system, the parlamentary democracy you may change time to time the government but not the power behind it. The superimposed structure will remain even if a government is topple with a new one.
What about Capitalism, is this economic structure imposed to us or do you think we vote for it? This kind of totalitarism that give us the idea that may count as people and individuals is indifferent to the multitude. Do you remember the war against Iraq? Is this despotic government listen to the people's voice? I don't think so.
The point is let cubans decide of their own future, they made a revolution in the past they can do another one if they want to. Cubans are between Castro and US regimes. They are afraid that someone would take advantage of the situation and destroy the small achievement they gained.

it could be chaired by cuban exiles!

in canse yu people were thinking HRW is an unbiased independent organisation simply concerned with pointing out human wrongs, read the following:

Why 'Human Rights Watch' Is Gunning For Macedonia?
Jared Israel 02/06/2001
source : The Emperor's Clothes
URL :  http://www.lai-aib.org/lai/article_lai.phtml?section=A3ABBBACBH&object_id=8834

Balkans Analysis and Dossiers Macedonia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human Rights Watch has made the news the last few days with public accusations that Macedonia is racist and brutal towards Albanians. These charges are reminiscent of claims made against the Serbian government during the fall and winter of 1998-1999. The reports are invariably anecdotal relying on supposedly anonymous, eyewitness (that is, unconfirmable) accounts of beatings and other abuses. Names are withheld:

"...because they fear further retaliation from the Macedonian police, and have in some cases been warned by their abusers not to discuss their maltreatment. (HRW Report on Macedonia)

Two problems with this sort of account.

First problem: We have to accept the honesty of HRW on faith. As we shall prove below, HRW is in essence the U.S. foreign policy elite. The people who dropped humanitarian cluster bombs all over Kosovo. Still feel comfortable trusting them?

How do we know that HRW 'investigators' actually interviewed the people it claims they interviewed?

If these people were interviewed, how do we know that HRW has accurately reported what the alleged people said?

Second problem: since names are withheld, how do we know who was actually talked to (if anyone) and whether they told the truth? If these people do exist, how do we know they are not KLA terrorists (called 'NLA' when they're attacking Macedonia) or their families, friends or supporters? Any of these people would have an interest in slandering Macedonian forces. HRW's reports constitute a public trial for whomever they attack - in this case, Macedonian security forces. But unlike a proper trial, in this one only the witnesses for the prosecution are heard.

(In addition this is an Imperial trial, since, as we shall see, the prosecutor/judge is none other than the U.S. Imperial Elite.)

The HRW is manifestly biased. Its reports use clever wording to trick readers into assuming that the guilt of Macedonian forces has already been proven when this is the very thing the HRW is supposedly investigating.

For example consider this sentence:

"[They]have in some cases been warned by their abusers not to discuss their maltreatment."

Very cute. By telling us that "the victims have been warned to be silent" (a completely unproven and possibly fabricated accusation) HRW tricks our minds into assuming that Albanians must in fact be victims. (For after all, how could they not be victims if they have been warned?!)

I call this kind of trickery the "Do you still beat your wife?" argument and it has been used by HRW as well as the Western media and an assortment of experts, including some supposed critics of Western foreign policy, to 'prove' the guilt of Serbs in Serbia, of Macedonians, of Mr. Miloshevich, of Bosnian Serbs, and so on.

(For example, in the case of Slobodan Miloshevich, we have been hearing for eight months that "investigators have still not located Miloshevich's stolen money." The failure to prove guilt (that is, finding no money) is cleverly worded to make it sound like evidence of guilt ("still not located"). Still not located takes for granted that the money is out there somewhere and we'll find it sooner or later.

The impression created by HRW, that "those poor Albanians are being abused again by the nasty Slavs," undercuts potential public opposition to U.S. policy in the Balkans. Indeed, it creates a public relations pressure on Washington to 'help the rebels' or at least "get the Macedonians to compromise." This is peachy for Washington since the 'rebels' are in fact Washington's proxy Army. Washington loves being pressured to support its children. (1)

Why is HRW effective?

There are several reasons. Let's consider two: First, its reports are given wide exposure in the mass media; second the press fosters the impression that HRW is some kind of issue-oriented activist group, you know, two dozen dedicated college kids and a starving attorney ferreting out the facts. They have to be motivated by idealism; why else would folks go traipsing around Macedonia in the middle of a war?

Below is Paul Treanor's description of HRW's European Section Steering Committee. It turns out the HRW leadership is comprised of America's foreign policy elite. As Mr. Treanor says:

"It is not a association of "concerned private citizens". HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarized, it is a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department."

NON-GOVERNMENTAL? HMMMMMM

HRW is part of a new category of group, the 'Non-Governmental Organization," or NGO. When I first heard the term 'NGO,' I wondered, "Why do they call them 'non-governmental?' Why not just call them 'organizations?' Why emphasize this denial of government status? It made me a bit suspicious, as if someone were to introduce himself by saying, "Hello. I'm John and you know, I'm not a murderer."

In fact, the term NGO is a deception; many of these groups are financially dependant on grants from the U.S. government or from large Foundations involved in foreign policy decision making at the highest level, such as the Soros and Carnegie Foundations.

As the cartoon character, the Wizard of Id, pointed out:

"The Golden Rule is: He who has the gold makes the rules."

NGOs that are financed by the foreign policy elite often act as forward-agents of the U.S. government. Their non-official status allows them to penetrate all imaginable social, political and economic functions of a target country. Without seeming to violate a country's sovereignty they can recruit talented young people into lucrative jobs - distributing U.S. bribes, really - while serving as a thousand tentacles, extending U.S. government influence and taking in information. In other words, they perform some of the same functions carried out by the CIA and other U.S. agencies engaged in foreign meddling. But NGOs have far less danger of exposure because they function in the open.

'Human Rights' Watch is a big, very powerful NGO, as Mr. Treanor's description of their European Section Steering Committee makes clear. This NGO is not controlled by the foreign policy elite. This NGO is the foreign policy elite.

HRW acts as a "forward strike force" for U.S. government intervention. Disguised as a 'Human Rights' activist NGO, HRW launches propaganda forays against target governments to assist the goals of U.S. policy, whether open or hidden.

Right now Washington has covertly sent its KLA terrorists to attack Macedonia while pretending to support Macedonian independence. Hence the current HRW attack on Macedonia and support for the terrorists.

HRW precedes the flag.

A REVEALING ANECDOTE

One of several recent HRW dispatches which have been produced to provide the Western media with anti-Macedonian propaganda includes an unintentionally revealing anecdote. The writer describes a situation in which there was no obvious conflict. Nevertheless, he says, there were clear signs of Macedonian abusiveness:

"It would have been easy to miss the tell-tale signs had the first policeman I approached not reacted so violently. There was little fighting in this northern corner of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia yesterday and the refugee convoy of tractors and ancient cars looked much like any other blocking the country’s roads recently. Yet the young officer was agitated. He swore and brandished his Kalashnikov, with a finger on the trigger to make sure I had got the point. After checking that we did not have a camera, he ordered me out of the area.

“'You bastards, this is all your fault,' he yelled, directing a string of abuse at my Macedonian interpreter, who was accused of being a traitor to his country." ('London Times,' May 30, 2001)

The writer then suggests that the reason the young officer angrily yelled, "You bastards, this is all your fault," is that he was afraid the HRW investigator would uncover Macedonian abuses.

Nonsense.

As anyone who has dealt with thuggish policemen knows, they do not engage in verbal criticism. They don't yell, "This is all your fault." They yell less pleasant things, or they hit you with a stick and throw you in jail for assault.

So assuming the HRW reporter is telling the truth, why did this particular policeman yell, "You bastards, this is all your fault"?

Obviously he had figured out whom he was dealing with: The American; the interpreter; the vehicle. It all spelled "U.S. Non-governmental organization (NGO)." If he saw the man's identification he knew he was dealing with that especially powerful NGO, HRW.

The International Organizations and American NGOs flooding Macedonia all claim they are trying to bring harmony to Macedonia. Observing their behavior, Macedonians have come to a different conclusion.

From the OSCE (which fronted for U.S. Intelligence in Kosovo just prior to the NATO bombing) to major NGOs like HRW, to more modest NGOs, they all carry out one or more of the following tasks:

Perform liaison work with the terrorists and/or

Sabotage resistance to the terrorists and/or

Push local Albanians into working with the terrorists and/or

Provide anti-Macedonian propaganda for the Western media.
[See footnotes 2 and 3]

When the officer said, "You bastards, this is all your fault," what he meant was: absent U.S. sponsorship of the fascist Kosovo Liberation Army and interference in Macedonian politics, there would now be no crisis in his country.

And he is right.

--Jared Israel

Here is Paul Treanor:

WHO IS ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Helsinki Steering Committee
By Paul Treanor

This is the Europian section of the Board of HRW, which is split into sections approximately by continent. The section was established in 1978 (in the late 1970's human rights became the main issue in Cold War propaganda). The unit in the organisation is called the Europe and Central Asia Division. It is affiliated with the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, which co-ordinates the "Helsinki committees". Source: HRW Board of Directors & Advisory Committees

Jonathan Fanton, Chair

An academic and foundation man. Former Vice President of the University of Chicago, in 1982 appointed as President of the New School for Social Research, now the New School University. He is active in building US academic contacts with eastern Europe, directed at the new pro-western elites, see the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies (TCDS) page.

Alice H. Henkin, Co-Vice Chair

Director of the Justice and Society Program at the Aspen Institute, an elite think-tank.

Note their report Honoring Human Rights: From Peace to Justice proposing United Nations mission strategies later used in Kosovo.

Peter Osnos, Co-Vice Chair

George Soros' publisher. He is Chief Executive of Public Affairs publishers.

Morton Abramowitz

A link to the US Foreign Policy establishment, one of several at HRW. Abramowitz was U.S. Ambassador to Turkey (1989-91) and Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (1985-89), among other posts: see his personal details at the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR, where he is a Fellow. The CFR is the heart of interventionist US policy since 1921 (and hated by the isolationist right).

He directed the CFR Balkan Economic Task Force, which published a report on "Reconstructing the Balkans".

Barbara Finberg

A donor of HRW, see the list below. A retired vice president with the Carnegie Corporation of New York, who donated $1 million to Stanford University.

Felice Gaer

Human rights specialist at the American Jewish Committee and chair of the Steering Committee for the 50th anniversary of the UN Human Rights Declaration, see this biography:
"Ms.Gaer is Director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights. Author, speaker, and activist, she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Board of Directors of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, a member of the International Human Rights Council at the Carter Center, ...Vice President of the International League for Human Rights."
According to this JTA report, Gaer praised Madeleine Albright for her "outstanding human rights record".

Felice Gaer was also a non-governmental member of the United States delegation to a United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, where (according to the Voice of America) she denounced Sudan, saying the the U.S. "cannot accept those who invoke Islam or other religions as justification for atrocious human rights abuses." However, more interesting is this speech at the Geneva meeting, where she suggested the UN should no longer investigate prison rapes in the US: "we would urge the Special Rapporteurs to focus their attention on countries where the situation is the most dire and the abuses the most severe."

Michael Gellert

Vice Chairman of the Board at Fanton's New School for Social Research. Investment manager and Trustee of the Carnegie Institute.

Gellert is a director of Premier Parks Inc., owner of the Six Flags and Walibi theme park chains. Also a director of:
High Speed Access Corp.,
Devon Energy Corporation,
Humana Inc..

Paul Goble

Director of Communications and political commentator at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Cold War propaganda transmitters that survived the end of the Cold War. From their website

"Free Europe, Inc., was established in 1949 as non-profit, private corporations to broadcast news and current affairs programs to Eastern European countries behind the Iron Curtain. The Radio Liberty Committee, Inc., was created two years later along the same lines to broadcast to the nations inside the Soviet Union. Both were funded principally by the U.S. Congress, through the Central Intelligence Agency, but they also received some private donations as well. The two corporations were merged into a single RFE/RL, Inc. in 1975."

It is still funded by the US Government, through Congressional appropriation.

Bill Green

Former Republican member of Congress, a trustee of the New School for Social Research (where Fanton is President), with many other public and business posts: see the biography at the American Assembly, an academic/political think-tank.

Stanley Hoffman

A pro-interventionist theorist (of course that means US intervention, not a Taliban invasion of the US). Professor at Harvard, see his biography. Note that his colleagues include Daniel Goldhagen, who openly advocated occupation of Serbia, to impose a US-style democracy: see A New Serbia.

Robert James

Also on the Board of Human Rights in China, another Soros-funded organisation.

Jack Matlock

US Ambassador to the Soviet Union during its collapse, 1987-1991. Author of Autopsy On An Empire: The American Ambassador's Account of the Collapse of the Soviet Union (Random House, 1995).

Member of the large Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Council is more than a pro-NATO fan club: it supports an expansionist US foreign policy in general. Note their recent paper (in pdf format) Beyond Kosovo, a redesign of the Balkans within the framework of the proposed Stability Pact.

The Atlantic Council list of sponsors is a delight for corporate-conspiracy theorists. Yes, it is all paid for by the Rockefeller foundation, the Soros foundation, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, Exxon, British Nuclear Fuels, the US Army and the European Union.

Conspiracy theorists will also be delighted to see that Matlock attended the 1996 Bilderberg Conference.



etc
 http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:Dh7GFoGo_u8C:www.lai-aib.org/lai/article_lai.phtml%3Fsection%3DA3ABBBACBH%26object_id%3D8834+human+rights+watch++soros+cuba&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

eve hear of the american revolution? which took power from the british? So with castro. YU would have approved of Batista. But what do yu think of Pinochet, who also took power, and killed the democratially elected allende? This actwas supporte by the US.Remember.
Castro did not take power: he was given it by the cuban people who openly suppored him.

Here isa bit about Batista, whom yu seem to think is a bastion of democracy:

Three weeks before the 1952 Cuban presidential elections, Fulgencio Batista Zaldivar Ð a former president Ð was running third in a 3-man-race. Dr. Roberto Agramonte of the Ortodoxos party led in all the polls, followed by Dr. Aurelio Hevia of the Autentico party. At this point, Batista decided to turn a likely political defeat into a sudden stunning victory. He simply seized control of the government by force of arms.

In the early hours of March 10, 1952, Batista and a handful of fellow officers entered Camp Columbia in Havana and took control of the Cuban army. With the army supporting him, he overthrew the presidency of Carlos Prio Soccaras in a scant 77 minutes. Only 2 men died in the 'almost' bloodless takeover, and an indifferent nation seemed neither to notice nor to care. By late that afternoon, Batista was firmly in power. Prio fled the country a few hours later. He left the control and destiny of Cuba in the grasping hands of the latest in a long line of leaders. Before Batista's takeover, Cuba's government had still functioned as a democracy. Government offices were riddled with corruption. Still, Cubans loyally held to the hope that by electing the right leadership, a democratic government might yet be preserved. Batista's sudden strike slammed the door shut on the hopes of most of them. He maintained office for 7 years by violence and repression.

 http://www.jiskha.com/social_studies/world_history/cuban_revolution.html

when did I ever say anything about Batista? I don't support him or his ideas. or those of Castro. But it would be rather nice if the Cuban people were given a chance to express their opinions - without being locked up for them.

sceptic, which cubans are yu referring to? those who lived well under batista and us rule , or those who did not. US and cuban exile objective is to roolback the revolutionary and create once again an oppressed impoverished class. Think aboutit. Yu seem to believe the cuban exiles wil create a just state,if given the chance. No question, if democracy comes to cuba, US will seek to determine the outcome.

not any more with the Patriot act.