The Friend of My Enemy ...

Potential rapprochement between Israel and Cuba, sparked by Fidel Castro's surprisingly direct condemnation of anti-Semitism in relation to anti-Israel politics, now looks to be off, thanks to the timely intervention of Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), incoming chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ros-Lehtinen has a reputation for being pro-Israel, but an even stronger one for being anti-Castro, and was exceptionally displeased at seeing the wide rift between Israel and Cuba be even partially bridged. Prime Minister Netanyahu has apparently written a letter of apology to Rep. Ros-Lehtinen.

I don't want to overstate things -- it was hardly the case that Israel and Cuba were on the verge of becoming besties until Ros-Lehtinen stepped in. And likewise, I don't consider what Ros-Lehtinen did to be inappropriate -- she has policy preferences which she is entitled to exercise, and furthering the isolation of Cuba matters more to her than countering the isolation of Israel. That's useful knowledge for me to have, but we're allowed to have differences of opinion.

I do think that Jeffrey Goldberg's wry comment about the relative power of "lobbies" is well-taken. But more fundamentally, this whole notion about who "controls" whose foreign policy -- that it is some unique abomination if the US adopts anything but a reckless, devil-may-care attitude towards how our foreign policy decisions impact other countries -- is substantively absurd. Countries (particularly, we'd hope, friendly countries) are constantly in dialogue with each other and adopt their policies to match the desires of their friends. Sometimes that means Israel varies its policies to suit allies in the US, and sometimes vice versa. Of course, here I think the policy Israel is being forced to pursue to appease Rep. Ros-Lehtinen is substantively bad for both them and us, but the process itself is decidedly normal.

Castro Tells Iran To Back Off the Anti-Semitism

If you haven't read Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with Fidel Castro, it's worth you time. Kind of like stepping into bizarro world, but worth your time.

Interesting Case of the Day

Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964).

Why? Two reasons:

1) In 1964, it was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held in favor of the Cuban government in a case concerning that government's compensation-less expropriation of American property. The case turned on the application of the "state action doctrine", which holds, essentially, that the acts of foreign government's inside their own territory will be considered valid and legitimate.

2) In addressing the question of whether expropriation of property violates customary international law, the opinion notes and gives authority to the opinions of both communist and newly independent countries which argued that such a position was unfair and in service of "imperialist" interests:

There are few if any issues in international law today on which opinion seems to be so divided as the limitations on a state's power to expropriate the property of aliens. There is, of course, authority, in international judicial and arbitral decisions, in the expressions of national governments, and among commentators for the view that a taking is improper under international law if it is not for a public purpose, is discriminatory, or is without provision for prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. However, Communist countries, although they have in fact provided a degree of compensation after diplomatic efforts, commonly recognize no obligation on the part of the taking country. Certain representatives of the newly independent and underdeveloped countries have questioned whether rules of state responsibility toward aliens can bind nations that have not consented to them and it is argued that the traditionally articulated standards governing expropriation of property reflect "imperialist" interests and are inappropriate to the circumstances of emergent states.

The disagreement as to relevant international law standards reflects an even more basic divergence between the national interests of capital importing and capital exporting nations and between the social ideologies of those countries that favor state control of a considerable portion of the means of production and those that adhere to a free enterprise system. It is difficult to imagine the courts of this country embarking on adjudication in an area which touches more sensitively the practical and ideological goals of the various members of the community of nations. (428-30)

I'm not expressing an opinion as to either existence or normative desirability of a customary international legal norm against expropriation without compensation. Rather, I thought it noteworthy both that Cuba won a case like this in American courts, and more broadly, that an American court openly considered the implications of certain perspectives normally considered quite radical and out of bounds in our public discourse.

Generally, this is how one is supposed to approach questions of customary international law, and of course, this is the double-edged sword of that institution: since it represents the customs of the entire world, and there is much disagreement in the world over a variety of customs which we often take to be touchstones of modern human rights standards, generally international law will always be tied to the behavior of its most regressive members. Canvassing the international community in order to determine international custom doesn't mean just looking at countries generally in line with American interests or values, and I thought this case illustrated that in uncommonly vivid fashion.

Sunday Roundup: Landlord/Tenant Edition

Busy weekend. Our landlord is trying to sell our house, which isn't directly a problem for us -- our lease is unaffected -- except that the real estate agent wants the four of us to live in full "sell the house" mode (every room sparkling clean, willing to vacate at anytime for showings, etc.) for the indefinite future. We're quite willing to be helpful up to a point, perhaps a few days of glittering cleanliness, but we can't effectively vacate the house as law students on any random night (where exactly are we supposed to go in Hyde Park?). I assume they can't force us to do anything, so I think we're in a solid bargaining position -- but the idea of a conflict is stressful to me.

Okay, that was a longer introduction than I intended. Roundup!

* * *

Should we keep "negro" as a census option?

South Carolina likens free lunch programs for impoverished children to feeding stray animals. Why? "Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that."

Anti-Semitic incidents way up in 2009.

Israeli right-wing extremists call Rahm Emanuel a traitor to the Jewish people in response to his upcoming visit to the country.

Cuban and American doctors are cooperating to relieve the Haiti crisis.

Italian gay couple hunger strikes for marriage rights.

Hussein Ibish warns of the perils of certainty regarding the outcome of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Pittsburgh police officers nearly beat a student to death for aggravated possession of Mountain Dew (now they're charging him with resisting arrest).

A judge charged with investigating Judge Sharon Keller's conduct in preventing the filing of a last-minute death penalty appeal has decided that fault mostly fell on the defense team, not the judge. He did find several instances of poor judgment on Keller's part, but recommended she receive no punishment. The report will be delivered to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which can decide whether to accept, reject, or modify the recommendations.

Obama Responds to Cuban Dissident

Cuban dissident Yoani Sanchez, recently beaten by state security, submitted seven questions to US President Barack Obama through her blog. Now, she has posted his responses. I am, of course, pleased to see the President aligning with Cuba's burgeoning civil society which is pressing domestically for democracy and human rights. As a general supporter of open engagement and building connections amongst peoples, I am opposed to the Cuba boycott, just as I am opposed to the Cuban government's policy of preventing citizens with diverse views from traveling abroad.

Ms. Sanchez also has six questions outstanding to Cuban President Raul Castro. She is still awaiting a reply.

Via Harry's Place.

Cuban Dissident Beaten by Security Forces

Story here (via). The victim was a prominent political blogger on her way to a peaceful march.

“No blood, but black and blues, punches, pulled hairs, blows to the head, kidneys, knee and chest,” Sánchez told El Nuevo Herald shortly after she and Orlando Luis Pardo were freed. “In sum, professional violence.”

“I, being a person of verbal pacifism, am shaken by this violence, because violence silences anyone,” the blogger declared in a telephone interview.

Thugs.

Cuba Nixes Women's Boxing

Cuba has, bar none, the best amateur boxing program in the world. In part that's because they've done the hard work of building up a top-flight program, in part it's because their top talent is forbidden from leaving the country and has to defect under cover of darkness if they want to turn pro. Six of one, one half of the other. In any event, after Olympic officials announced the addition of women's boxing to the lineup -- the last sport not to be offered to both men and women [update: in the Summer Olympics] -- Cuban officials have announced that they will not be fielding a team. The reason? They're sexist:

"We have no plans at the moment to participate in any international events because we don't think the sport is appropriate for women," Jose Barrientos said in comments reported on Friday by Cuba's official news service, Prensa Latina [President of the Cuban Boxing Federation].
[...]
"Cuban women should be showing off their beautiful faces, not getting punched in the face," said Pedro Roque, a top coach of Cuban boxers.

In spite of everything, there is some mythologizing of Cuba by the (mostly European) far-left as having some admirable progressive qualities on human rights. This should be laughable -- Cuba is an oppressive dictatorship and always has been. But this is revealing because it doesn't have anything to do with the exercise of political control. It's just a manifestation of illiberal attitudes towards women, pure and simple.

Justice for Slaves

I was running through my archives, and came across this post about three Cuban workers who were effectively sold into slavery by Cuba to Curacao Drydock Co.. The post then noted that a Florida court had agreed to hear the case against the corporation for its complicity with Cuban human rights violations. I decided to see if anything had happened, and I was gratified to learn that last October the district court announced a judgment for the plaintiffs in an amount totaling $80 million dollars. Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co., Inc., 584 F.Supp.2d 1355 (S.D.Fla. 2008). I don't think the case is freely available, but you can get a good summary from the Cuba Study Group.

We can disagree over what America's Cuba policy should be. But there must be no doubt about the vicious brutality of the Cuban regime, which includes (but is hardly limited to) constructing a slave economy in tandem with heartless multinational corporations. This verdict, in addition to providing justice for the enslaved workers, is a good start in illuminating these practices.

Modern Day Slaves

The U.S. Federal Court for the Southern District of Florida has agreed to hear, under the Alien Tort Statute, the case of three Cuban nationals who were trafficked by the Cuban government to Curacao and held there as slaves.

The Defendant and the Cuban government trafficked the Plaintiffs from Cuba to Curaçao under threat of physical and psychological harm including the threat of imprisonment. Upon arrival in Curaçao, the Plaintiffs' passports were taken and they were held on the grounds of the Defendant, along with scores of their compatriots. The workers were only allowed to leave those grounds under the guard of Cuban government agents. They were forced to work in slave-like conditions for 112 hours per week performing drydock services on ships and oil platforms. The pay for their work, the complaint alleges, was paid to the Cuban government. (In discovery, Defendant admitted that it credited Cuba on a debt it was owed by Cuba in exchange for the labors of the Cuban workers). The complaint alleges a situation in which the government of Curaçao was likely complicit due to the circumstances in which the Plaintiffs were transported to Curaçao and held there. Further, the Plaintiffs were denied all protections of the laws of Curaçao for injuries they suffered there, and, when any of the workers were injured or complained, they were promptly deported to Cuba and treated as enemies of the state. If they escaped and were caught, they were likewise deported to Cuba and punished. Plaintiffs, however, successfully escaped the Defendant's drydock facility, and were hunted by Defendant and agents of the Defendant within Curaçao and by the agents of the Cuban government all the way to Colombia, where they were granted political asylum. The United States then granted Plaintiffs parole to enter the United States.

In the 19th Century, slave trafficking was punishable by death. I don't support the death penalty anymore, but for greed-saturated corporations that cooperate with totalitarian regimes to acquire slave labor, it makes a tempting argument for itself.