By its inaction, Brazil has blown an opportunity to show the world
that it is ready to stand up for human rights and has grown up
politically. It would be too much to expect though. President Lula
himself, a little over a year ago, declared that Fidel Castro
was "the greatest statesman in the Americas".

John Fitzpatrick

The idea of criticizing Cuba is anathema to many Brazilians—including, it appears, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. So, Brazil really surprised no one last week when it announced it would abstain, in the United Nations vote to condemn Cuba for its most recent, flagrant disregard for human rights.

The attempt by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro to take advantage of the world spotlight on Iraq to crack down on dissidents, and summarily execute by firing squad ("murder" would be a better description) three men accused of hijacking a ferryboat, was hopefully the last twitch of a dying regime. However, rather than show a lead and condemn such barbaric behavior, Brazil's representative at the U.N. Human Rights Commission was looking elsewhere, perhaps out the window at the swans gliding across Lake Geneva, or scratching his head over a crossword puzzle while the debate raged on.

By its inaction, Brazil has blown an opportunity to show the world that not only is it ready to stand up for human rights, but it has grown up politically. Again though, it would have been quite difficult to expect a different stand from Brazil: only a year or so before being elected president, Lula himself declared that Fidel Castro was "the greatest statesman in the Americas". If Lula no longer feels that way about Cuba's absolute boss, he has told no one.

The Cuba debate arises every year at the U.N., and many Latin American countries use it as a way of showing their "independence" from the U.S., despite the fact they are economically dependent on the Americans. Brazil has always abstained, and even the United States' NAFTA partner, Mexico, has never supported the U.S. position, although there were signs this year the Mexicans might change tack. Argentina also announced that it would abstain. At the time of writing, no final vote had been taken.

The debate always covers the same ground. The Americans call Cuba a Communist dictatorship, and the Cubans criticize the Americans for insisting on an economic blockade and supporting Cuban exiles in Miami. Although as a debate it is sterile, the discussion does serve a useful purpose, as it focuses attention on the fact that Castro runs a dictatorship.

There are now signs that even some of Castro's admirers are becoming frustrated by his arrogance and brutality. The Brazilian media highlighted the fact that Portuguese writer and long time Castro supporter José Saramago, who won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Literature, had finally turned against him after recent events. Under the heading "Até Aqui Cheguei" (roughly translated as That's It—I Have Had Enough), Saramago wrote: "Cuba won no heroic battle by shooting these men, but lost my trust, destroyed my hopes, cheated me of illusions." The O Estado de S. Paulo daily was one of several that published his comment prominently.

Another Nobel laureate, Italian dramatist Dario Fo, also condemned the executions, while the reformed Italian Communist Party issued a statement criticizing itself for not paying more attention to the growing repression in Cuba. Most Americans or Cubans have probably never heard of either writer, but this desertion by intellectuals could be the thin end of the wedge. Castro has always benefited from the leeway granted by liberal and leftwing intellectuals, artists and opinion makers who still see him as a swashbuckling revolutionary, fighting alongside Che Guevara to free the downtrodden peasants from the Batista dictatorship.

There is much to be criticized in the U.S. approach, and staunch allies like the U.K. and Canada have always defied Washington. It is true that Cuba has been unfairly singled out by the United States for almost 40 years, as punishment for Castro's duplicity in hiding his Communist credentials when he first assumed power. The U.S. has lacked consistency, since it has propped up many other unsavory regimes in Latin America. It has also been choosy in who it picks on. Under Bill Clinton it abandoned its human rights battle against another Communist dictatorship, China, which now has most favored trading nation status.

Unfortunately, no American president—whether liberal like Jimmy Carter and Clinton or a hawk like Ronald Reagan—has had the courage to grasp this nettle. By doing nothing, the U.S. has let the sore fester, and inadvertently strengthened Castro's position. However, at the same time, the U.S. has done more for Cuba than the former Soviet Union ever did, by providing a home for hundreds of thousands of Cubans—political refugees and workers just seeking a better life.

It is worth asking whether Cuba would be a better place today if Castro had not thrown his shadow across it for 40 years. I have the feeling it would be. Instead of being subsidized by the former Soviet Union for decades, and basing its economy on a commodity product like sugar, it would have diversified and exploited its other natural and human resources.

Still, there are many Latin Americans who have watched with admiration as Castro has thumbed his nose at the Americans for decades. He tried to foment revolts in various countries, and sheltered guerrillas and dissidents, including Lula's right hand man and current federal government Chief of Staff, José Dirceu.

At the same time, Castro became arrogant and assumed that other Latin American countries were in the palm of his hand. The three countries that supported the latest U.N. resolution—Peru, Uruguay and Costa Rica—were called "vile lackeys of the Empire" by Cuba. And the Cuban ambassador to the UN said they had committed "treason", apparently forgetting that one can only be treasonable to one's own country, not another. This attitude makes the Cubans sound more imperialistic than the Americans.

Nevertheless, we should be thankful that one high-ranking Brazilian, Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights no less, has publicly expressed concern at what he called "the arrests and ongoing trials of the approximately 80 persons charged with working for a foreign power to undermine the Cuban Government". Vieira de Mello was appointed to this top post last September, after successfully heading a U.N. administration in East Timor.

One might have expected the Brazilian government to take his position into consideration before announcing its official decision. But obviously, the Itamaraty—Brazil's Foreign Affairs Ministry, feels it is more important to spare the feelings of a Communist dictator than support one of Brazil's most highly respected representatives on the global scene.

A visit to the U.N. Human Rights Commission* website yields yet another Brazilian touch. It features a drawing by Brazilian artist Octavio Roth, illustrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "Everybody has the right to life, liberty and security of person" is written underneath a crude drawing of a figure reaching for the sun. So far, the author has not added "Except Cubans."

* United Nations Human Rights Commission page featuring drawing by Brazilian artist Octavio Roth (on the top left hand side of the page) http://www.ohchr.org/news 

John Fitzpatrick is a Scottish journalist who first visited Brazil in 1987 and has lived in São Paulo since 1995. He writes on politics and finance and runs his own company, Celtic Comunicações—  www.celt.com.br, which specializes in editorial and translation services for Brazilian and foreign clients. You can reach him at jf@celt.com.br

© John Fitzpatrick 2003

This article appeared originally in Infobrazil, at www.infobrazil.com

Discuss it in our Forum

Send your
comments to
Brazzil