Marifeli Perez-Stable

Published in The Miami Herald
February 12, 2009

On Feb. 5, the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) reviewed the Cuban government’s record. Unlike the old U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the HRC mandates a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for all member states. The UPR consists of three principal documents:

• A national report

• A U.N. report that follows the same protocol for all countries

• A summary report of NGO submissions that similarly adheres to uniform guidelines.

Countries are reviewed according to an already established calendar. The HRC holds a three-hour discussion: The country under scrutiny has up to an hour to present its case; the remaining two hours are allotted among interested U.N. member states. Before the HRC issues the final report, the country being reviewed submits written responses to the recommendations made.

That said, let’s turn to Cuba’s UPR last Thursday.

Unsurprisingly, controversies swirled before the HRC called Cuba’s three-hour session to order. The summary report of NGO submissions prompted a bevy of complaints from Havana and the organizations sympathetic to official Cuba.

In their view, the U.N.-drawn summary didn’t do justice to Cuba’s record nor address the harm perpetrated by the U.S. embargo. Havana’s own report set the tone for the burst of praise on its behalf. In essence, the Cuban government claims to respect all human rights.

A total of 326 NGOs submitted 2,000, mostly Havana-friendly pages. A spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed surprise at the number: ”Normally, they come in dozens, not hundreds.” The High Commissioner responded that “the drafting procedure was rigorously the same as the one used for all countries.”

More than 100 countries signed up to speak at Cuba’s review, but only 60 were able to take the floor. Chile, Mexico and Brazil asked Havana to respect the rights of political opponents as well as for an ”effective guarantee” of freedom of expression and the right to travel. Other countries in the region — e.g., Colombia, Panama, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic — chose to focus only on Cuba’s record on education and healthcare.

A group of eight countries — Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Holland, Israel, Italy, Slovakia and the United Kingdom — called on Havana to free human-rights advocates and other prisoners of conscience. Ricardo Alarcón, president of Cuba’s National Assembly, commented: “In this country, there are no political prisoners. People are in jail for crimes against the law, for being paid agents of a foreign government.”

Cuba has taken small steps in the right direction. Last year, it signed, but has yet to ratify without reservations, the international covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. On Jan. 28, Havana announced that it would ratify the Convention on Forced Disappearances and invite the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture to visit the island.

What Havana won’t do is accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the keynote document from which all other treaties and covenants flow. Its country report claims compliance, but its record belies it. The Declaration is written in pristine language that leaves no room for interpretation. For example: ”Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” and ”to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” The Declaration doesn’t say that only those who agree with those in power have these rights.

Cafeteria approach

On Thursday, the HRC made 75 recommendations. Havana accepted 60 outright, mostly on matters unrelated to political rights. It will take into consideration the remainder such as inviting U.N. special rapporteurs or giving the International Red Cross access to its jails.

There’s no reason to expect that Cuba will abandon its cafeteria approach to human rights. Unless fundamental changes happen, neither will it broach its next UPR, in 2013, with the requisite seriousness. Submitting 2,000 pages is overkill when releasing political prisoners would gain Havana real wiggle room.

Let me end with the Declaration: ”All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Our dignity and our rights are innate to our human condition. Governments are charged with respecting and making possible what is rightfully ours. Dignity and rights are simply not governments’ to administer conveniently in pursuit of their ends.

Marifeli Pérez-Stable is vice president for democratic governance at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C., and a professor at Florida International University.