Passport

Yoani Sánchez (to the left, in white shirt and long hair) arriving in Brazil. Supporters and detractors walk with her at the airport (from El Informador).

In October last year, the Cuban government announced an Immigration and Tourism reform. Since January 2013 Cubans would be able to travel abroad just with their passports, no longer requiring the so-called “exit visa”, a permit that allowed them to leave the country. Despite the enthusiasm that the relaxation of immigration measures initially provoked, Cubans were quick to notice that it did not mean that they could leave and return to the country as they pleased.  The government still retains control of migratory flows by deciding who will receive a passport.

Yoani Sánchez applied for this document, received it, and is now in a world tour. She is the acknowledged writer of the Generación Y blog (English version: http://www.desdecuba.com/generationy/). Its title makes reference to the fad during the 70s, whose reason remains obscure for many Cubans, to include a y in the names of their newborns: Yoandris, Yowlys, Oreydi, Yunior, Robeisy, Yurileidys, etc. Apparently, the government promoted this to demonstrate that the island was different by making its own Socialist way in the Americas. Sánchez dedicates her blog to people who bear a y in their names, and that saw their childhood marked by lots of rural schools, Russian cartoons, and illegal immigration.

It is tempting to try to uncover the motivations that led the Cuban government to issue the passport to Sánchez. After living in Switzerland for  couple of years, she returned to Cuba in 2002 and did not leave the country until this week, when she began her tour. With it, she is accepting invitations from diverse organizations who are interested in her blog, where she posts vignettes illustrating the control of the government over the economy, the diverse constraints to all kinds of freedom, or how people try to overcome the difficulties of scarcity. Her first stop was Brazil; next, she will go to Argentina, Peru, Mexico, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the U.S.

Otherwise said, she is popular within the circle of media activists for democracy and human rights. It would be surprising that the Cuban government did not know this in advance. But the Cuban government also knows that, maybe even without trying, it can find supporters in many places of the world. For instance, just after going through customs in the airport in Brazil, a group of people confronted Yoani Sánchez by yelling that she was a CIA agent trying to depose the Cuban government with anti-Castro posts on her blog. She responded that she was glad to be in a democratic country where people could just speak their mind without a policeman interrogating them afterwards. Later that night, a group of pro-Cuba activists boycotted a film premiere she was scheduled to attend. Thus, the goal would be to create doubts about her image. Or maybe it was just the Cuban government trying to release some pressure against itself, by allowing a political opponent to leave the country for some months. If there was any particular intention in the Cuban authorities by issuing Sánchez a passport, perhaps future stops of her tour will offer more clues to it.

Required Watching: “A Whisper to a Roar”

The Department of State and the National Archives offered two independent screenings of Dr. Larry Diamond’s new film A Whisper to a Roar this week. Co-produced and written by Ben Moses, the film is a must-see.

It offers a glimpse into pivotal moments of struggle, triumph, and frustration among democracy activists in Egypt, Malaysia, Ukraine, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Unlike many films about political transitions, it does not highlight a shining beacon of democratic transition upon which all others can be compared; instead, A Whisper to a Roar brilliantly dives into the complexities of governance, elections, and repression. It depicts horrific, disturbing images of state-sanctioned torture and murder that have resulted from authoritarianism. It shows the personal risks taken by activists as they demand accountable and democratic governance. It chronicles the reality that activists face in their struggles for fundamental freedom around the world and in so-doing provides a critical link between political freedom and the protection of human rights.

Cross posted here: http://lizaprendergast.wordpress.com/

“History will judge…”

General Ríos Montt (from AP).

Yesterday a court in Guatemala took the necessary steps to begin the trial against General Efraín Ríos Montt for crimes against humanity because of the killing of 1,771 Mayans during his tenure as head of state between 1982 and 1983, during the country’s 36-year long civil war (1960-1996).

Even before it formally begins (allegedly, some pre-trial hearings have already taken place), the announcement of the trial is historic: Gral. Ríos Montt will be the first former head of state in Latin America to face a civilian court in his own country for abuses during his government. The previous most similar case was that of Augusto Pinochet, who ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990. He also faced a tribunal under charges of gross human rights violations, but it was in Spain. Thus, Ríos’ trial represents an unparalleled opportunity for national judicial authorities to bring to justice the ultimate responsible government official for the abuses committed, the head of state. In addition, several press reports and statements issued by organizations such as Human Rights Watch point out the remarkable feature of Guatemala, a country usually identified with impunity and a chronically weak judiciary system, putting to trial one of its own war criminals for maybe the largest massacre in its national history.

On the other hand, the possibility that nothing comes out of the trial must be considered. Ríos Mont is in his mid eighties. It can occur that, as Pinochet, he dies at the middle of the process. Or that despite of the good intentions of the judges, the bureaucratic inertia of the judiciary system makes it impossible to carry out the trial in proper time. What is more, evidence might be collected inadequately and the whole case could be deemed unacceptable. Finally, there could be large dissatisfaction with the sentence dictated; what punishment for having ordered the killing of more than 1,700 people can be adequate for a man close to his nineties?

As a friend’s law professor said, justice that comes late is injustice. Almost thirty years have passed since the murders, and the prospects for conviction are anything but clear. However, the public claiming that Ríos Montt could be guilty and that it is to be decided on the courts might be a proxy to justice, although maybe only in the sense that efforts were made not to let him get his way.

The Due Process of Law

Florence Cassez upon her arrival at the Paris airport.

Last Wednesday the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ordered the immediate release of French citizen Florence Cassez, who was serving 60 years in prison (already 7 had gone by) accused of belonging to a band of criminals dedicated to kidnapping. Upon arriving to her country, she said that her freedom meant a victory for Mexicans because the Mexican authorities “acknowledged her innocence” and justice was made. The President François Hollande and his Foreign Affairs Minister made commentaries in very similar terms. On the other hand, one of the alleged victims of the band, who in various occasions during the trial visually identified Cassez, said the Court’s decision was “disgusting” and that he was leaving Mexico for good.

That person was not the only victim of the band to which Cassez allegedly belonged. Other people gave their testimonies saying they had been kidnapped by that group, and, in the ranch where they were detained outside Mexico City, the police collected further items that were presented as evidence. Cassez always sustained that she was another victim; that she had been fooled by her boyfriend (another member of the criminal band) and that she never did anything wrong (according to the victims’ stories, she was in charge of feeding and keeping an eye on them, and occasionally beat them).

So far, this seems a relatively common case in which two quarreling parts present opposing interpretations for a criminal act. In addition, this case was widely publicized because it was one of the first occasion in which the new judiciary system in Mexico was going to be used. Instead of the judge having tenths, even hundreds of binders with the transcriptions of everything that was said during the trial, a reform was introduced to make processes more agile and efficient.

However, in that attempt to give publicity to the case, the federal Secretariat for Public Safety recreated (under knowledge of the Secretary, Genaro García Luna) live for television the detention of the band of kidnappers without stating that the original and real arrest had taken place the day before. What is more, in the recreation, policemen altered the ranch where Cassez and the other criminals were discovered with a victim, thus rendering useless large parts of the evidence collected there. The judges of the Supreme Court used in part these arguments to order the release of Cassez: the due process of law was not guaranteed and there was no way to judge on Cassez’s innocence or culpability. Thus, she was released.

In a country with a long tradition of a functioning judicial system, maybe a similar decision would still be controversial, yet it would likely be taken as the result of deliberations among judges and maybe no serious doubts would be cast over it. However, in Mexico, with a long tradition of a judicial system working within judges’ arbitrariness, corruption, and political interference, the Court’s decision was easily taken as a clear sign that there is no justice in the country. All the testimonies were against Cassez, yet because of a procedural issue she was set free. The strengthening of the judiciary system requires that the due process is always respected; both victims and defendants have rights to be protected. However, confidence must be also built around institutions to work, even more if they are new. And this is still largely missing in Mexico.

Freedom in the World

On Wednesday Freedom House published Freedom in the World: 2013, a report built on an index trying to measure the level of political rights and civil liberties in all the countries of the world and in some territories in dispute (http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/freedom-world-2013-middle-east-gains-provoke-intensified-repression). Here are some highlights:

Numbers: 90 countries ranked as free (three more than the previous year). 27 nations had significant declines, next to 16 with gains. It is the seventh consecutive year in which there are more declines than gains.

Arab Spring countries have experienced diverging paths. On the positive extreme we have Tunisia; on the other side, Syria. Egypt seems to be the case in the middle. The evidence for advancements in liberties is in the energy of civil society and the installation of a civil rule. On the contrary, worrisome issues include the cumbersome process of writing the Constitution, the lack of balance to the President’s power, or attacks to NGOs. Furthermore, it is yet unclear whether the Muslim Brotherhood is committed to democracy or not.

This adds up to another observation: authoritarian leaders are finding even more ways to curtail the liberties of citizens, as is the case of Russia and Turkey. Putin and Erdoğan have taken different course of action to secure or increase their power in face of other political actors (opposition parties, the legislature) or the society (by rigging elections, reducing freedom of speech, or frustrating the activities of NGOs).

Regarding North America and Western Europe, although no major changes with respect to previous years are reported, it is noted that nationalist sentiments (and against immigrants) have arisen in some countries due to constraints related to the economic crisis that began in 2008.

Under this scenario, it might seem fair to re-ask the question posed by Barbara Geddes almost two decades ago: what do we know about democratization forty years later? An initial caveat is to refrain from unconditional enthusiasm when facing citizen protests, whose outcome is still largely uncertain. Given that this is the seventh year in a row in which declines in liberties surpass the gains, could this be an indicator of the world experiencing a “reverse wave of democratization”, borrowing from Samuel Huntington? The subtitle for the Freedom House communiqué is “Calls for US leadership as democracy declines for seventh year”. Before that, it seems about time to think with even more attention about why democracy assistance actions and domestic political processes have and have not led to that goal.