Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by saying that it's a delight to be back with former colleagues representing all parties. When I was here recently, we had I think a high degree of inter-party cooperation, particularly on human rights, and therefore it's a great pleasure for me to be here on this occasion.
I'll read a brief statement that I've written this morning, and I'm sure it will be within the timeframe, and then later on perhaps there will be some questions.
It's almost 50 years since Fidel Castro came to power. His situation at the time was a real revolution, supported at that time by most democrats, I add, throughout the world. Unlike my friends from Czechoslovakia, or the Poles or the Baltic states, who had so-called real socialism imposed on them or maintained by the presence of the Red Army, the revolution in Cuba originally was, I would contend, an authentic revolution against a very repressive regime. In the intervening period, seen through the lens of the United Nations system of rights—that is to say, civil, political, economic, and social—the results have been mixed.
On the one hand, significant and ongoing progress in some social rights--for example, in health and literacy--has been real in Cuba; in fact, remarkable progress compared with the vast majority of Latin American countries. At one point recently, according to UN data—if I remember correctly, and I think I do—the infant mortality rate in Cuba was in fact better than that in the United States.
On the other hand, for the vast majority of the intervening decades since that revolution, there has been a gross denial of political and civil rights, particularly of but not restricted to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. Neither are there free and independent parties, except for the Communist Party, nor are there free and independent unions.
As reported by Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, among many others, in the past few years political and civil rights, if anything, have deteriorated in Cuba. Along with China, the Cuban government has the dubious record of being one of the most repressive regimes for journalists and access to the Internet. I give those as modern examples.
A variety of reasons have been given in an attempt to justify this repression. Most notably, throughout the decades the United States economic embargo has been seen by some to warrant denial of rights in Cuba. While I believe this U.S. policy has rightly been opposed by Canada, and I believe by virtually all members of the European Union, it cannot justify the ongoing denial of rights by the Cuban government. On the contrary, I believe a free Cuba in every sense of the implementation of the whole family of UN rights, would provide a robustly democratic and popular defence against the U.S. embargo and in defence of the Cuban nation.
The reality is that the harmful and unwarranted aggression aimed at Cuba by a succession of U.S. governments has provided President Castro with a propaganda weapon he uses to justify his demands for the virtual total obedience he expects of the Cuban people and total submission to his political priorities. As many observers, including Americans, have pointed out, the removal of the U.S. embargo and the establishment of the free flow of goods and people between the United States and Cuba would be one of the most democratic and effective pressures to put on Fidel Castro to establish the whole range of freedoms within his own country.
As a social democrat, I praise the Cuban government for its emphasis on certain social and economic rights, not only for its own people but also, I add, for assistance to others in Latin America. However, equally as a social democrat, I deplore the denial of political and civil rights.
Soon after the Second World War, the distinguished and courageous Albert Camus, winner of the Nobel Prize in literature, spoke to a group of workers outside Paris. I want, Mr. Chairman, to quote what Camus had to say. He was, I emphasize, speaking in a war that was against one form of totalitarianism and increasingly aware of the totalitarian nature of the Soviet Union.
What Albert Camus had to say then is I think directly relevant to the world today, and in particular because we're talking about the Cuba of today. Here's what he said, and I emphasize again that he was speaking to a group of workers outside of Paris. I quote:
If someone takes away your bread, he suppresses your freedom at the same time. But if someone takes away your freedom, you may be sure that your bread is threatened, for it depends no longer on you and your struggle but on the whim of a master.
Someone should mail that, perhaps every day.... I understand that someone has been mailing the Prime Minister books. Someone should mail this quote, perhaps, to Fidel Castro once a week. I don't want to be facetious, though. I'll continue.
I want to be able to have time later to respond, as well as your other guests, to questions. Therefore, I want to conclude with a brief story.
As the president of Rights and Democracy in 1991, I met with Fidel Castro to discuss the question of rights and democracy within Cuba. I brought to him a proposition, supported at that time by many social democratic leaders of governments, including Felipe González of Spain, Carlos Andrés Pérez of Venezuela, Michael Manley in Jamaica, and a number of others. In 1992 there was to be scheduled a meeting in Madrid of all the heads of Latin American governments, as well, of course, as the host country, being Spain itself, with the host being Felipe González.
The Americans, not being Latinos, were not invited. Therefore, the proposal that was made, which I discussed with Mr. Castro, was in fact to present him with a challenge. The challenge was that he should announce an opening of the political process in Cuba, including the extension of political and civil rights, while he was at Madrid. If he did so, a whole group of leaders and heads of government in western Europe at that time—and some, as I've already indicated, here in the Americas—were quite prepared to take economic and social matters that would more than compensate for the negative effects of the American embargo.
Well, after three and a half hours of argument with Mr. Castro, the conclusion, which became clear early in the conversation, was that there was no way Mr. Castro was going to respond. Illustrative of his own attitude towards political and civil rights, I regret to say, was a case of one Elizardo Sanchez, who was a member of the social democratic movement, and exiled then in Cuba, a man I knew well. What was going on in Havana not long before I went was that because of the political opposition that Mr. Sanchez had raised—by the way, I add that he was not critical at all of most of what Castro had done in social and economic matters, obviously—in calling for political and civil rights, one of the defensive neighbourhood committees that are set up for the so-called defence of the revolution, day after day, 24 hours a day, were beating pots and pans outside the residence of Mr. Sanchez' elderly mother, who was quite elderly, in her home in Havana. A total state of harassment; unpardonable, unacceptable harassment.
When I raised this instance with Mr. Castro as an illustration of a man, Mr. Sanchez, who in fact supported much of what Mr. Castro had achieved—I repeat, in social and economic rights but was quite critical of the failure up to that point to open up in terms of political and civil rights—Mr. Castro said, and I quote, “He is a worm”, end of quote. That was illustrative of his attitude, I regret to say again, towards political and civil rights.
I want to conclude with this anecdote. I will be very happy to discuss with members of the committee perhaps some policy options that should be taken to encourage the flourishing, at some point, of political and civil rights in Cuba.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.