|
CUBAN LIBRARIES
SOLIDARITY GROUP
I apologize in advance for not being brief. But this issue does not lend itself to brevity and never has. Sorry about the “footnotes” but I thought it was best to do it like this! Mr. Hentoff -- hardly a human rights guru in my book -- is a prominent man with a strong opinion. But lest we forget: immediately before our Annual conference in Toronto, and on the day it began, we were the subject of an organized media campaign including Mr. Hentoff -- to pressure us to pass a resolution against Cuba. Articles appeared initially in the Washington Times (ho-hum), but then the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times and some other more mainstream press. I suspect that Mr. Hentoff’s article might be the opening salvo for a similar attempt to embarrass ALA into doing “something” about Cuba in San Diego. That has been the strategy of Mr. Kent’s group in the past and it will remain so. But rather than being a “shameful silence” on Cuba, ALA’s position thus far has demonstrated an extraordinary resistance to being drawn into a situation which is not easy to decipher, despite its simplistic characterization by Hentoff and others. ALA has shown intelligence in trying to independently investigate where the truth (or truths) lie, something neither Mr. Hentoff or IFLA have attempted. Karen, it isn’t that Mr. Kent’s posts are just “obnoxious.” They are part of a very smart, well-financed, well-connected and relentless strategy to get the ALA involved in an important U.S. foreign policy offensive. If you think not, then you don’t know history. We have resisted thus far because it has smelled a little fishy all along. In Toronto, Kent finally admitted to the LJ reporter that his “Friends of Cuban Librarians” receives government funds. Why do you suppose that is and what funds might those be? Follow the money! Contrary to what Mr. Kent and Mr. Hentoff say, the so called “independent librarians” and other dissidents are *not* in prison because of their books, their private libraries, or their “free expression” what got them into trouble was their active collaboration with the United States Helms Burton Law. They were convicted of accepting cash and materials that comes to dissidents through this law. This is illegal in Cuba. The US also criminalizes the manipulation of its own political process by foreign governments, yet it cynically allocates monies for the manipulation and overthrow of Cuba’s government. *This* is the issue we are dealing with, not some no-brainer “human rights” issue, or whether “1984” is in Cuban libraries, as Mr. Kent and Mr. Hentoff would have us believe. The Helms-Burton is an interventionist U.S. law passed in 1996 which, among many other provisions, appropriates millions of dollars of US taxpayers’ money for the overthrow of the Cuban government. They call it “transition to democracy,” and it’s supposed to be “non-violent,” but the stated purpose is what we now euphemistically describe as “regime change.” The law and its implementation through USAID and NED include the direct funding of dissident groups, although, as might be expected, right-wing Cuban organizations in South Florida (and groups like Kent’s?) take home the lion’s share first. The Helms Burton is a multi-million dollar industry in South Florida. To a lesser extent, it is the trough which feeds a U.S. funded and organized dissident movement in Cuba. (Mr. Kent himself admitted that he was a former Freedom House courier for these illegal funds.) The Cuban government, in direct response to Helms Burton, passed laws criminalizing collaboration with it, including Law #80 (So did Canada, by the way.) Until March of last year, Cuba had not imprisoned collaborators, but with the Bush Administration came an intensification of Helms Burton funding and activity, much of it emanating directly out of the US Interests Section in Havana, in open and flagrant disregard of diplomatic norms. I’m not making this up; this is what led up to the arrests in March 2003. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot and *we* were the small country being overwhelmed by money from a huge nation determined to change our political and economic system by any means necessary. Would we not have the right to defend ourselves? We can’t forget that by our own admission (read, librarians, read!) the U.S. has attempted assassinations, sabotage, economic strangulation and all manner of plots and schemes to overthrow the government of Cuba for 40 years. This is indisputable and documented. The Helms Burton and all that it has brought to Cuba is just the latest incarnation of this policy. And our ALA’s complicity is one of the important objectives of this latest campaign. In fact, it is the “prize”, the weapon that Kent & Co. seeks, and we need to understand that. Deep in our hearts we know these people are not librarians. Read Rhonda Neugebauer’s report written in 2002 called “Payment for Services Rendered.” Rhonda is a Latin Americanist, who knows a lot about Cuba firsthand and is a current member of the IRC. Read also the report of the ALA delegation that visited Cuba for the ACURIL conference in the spring of 2001. It is difficult to seriously assert that these people are librarians, either professional *or* amateur. They certainly are dissident politicians, apparently non-violent, who sometimes use the moniker of “librarians” to enhance their stature. This is not about professionalism or degrees it is about authenticity, honesty and vocation. What is it about them that demands a resolution from us, when they are not librarians by any objective criteria? Are we simply to say something general about “human rights” or “dissidents” in Cuba, since we lack the criteria? I disagree with Deidre on this point. We don’t make these kinds of pronouncements about any other place in the world, including our own country. We have failed to address America’s involvement with torture (see the latest Amnesty report on this), the massive roundup of immigrants in this country on no charges whatsoever, the use of the death penalty in the U.S., the murder of trade unionists in Colombia, etc. etc. Let us not forget that, despite the exemplary leadership role that ALA is now playing on USA PATRIOT, Council couldn’t even put the word “repeal” in last year’s PATRIOT Act resolution. We couldn’t find it in our hearts to say that war is a library issue. What is it about Cuba in particular that makes us think we can set ourselves up as another Amnesty International, when in general Council has rejected that role for itself time and time again? Can we be pressured and “shamed” into doing so by people masquerading as our “colleagues” and championed by certain media and "big names"? I hope not. And there is something else. Despite the fact that we as librarians prize them highly, political rights for instance intellectual freedom -- is only one of a constellation of human rights, some of which Cuba respects in greater measure than the United States (e.g. universal health care, universal, free education, certain economic rights. It may not be fashionable to say this, but anyone who follows internal Cuban affairs, UN reports and the like, knows this to be the case. Even Amnesty, while critical of Cuba, credits the role of the United States policy in setting back the expansion of political rights in Cuba. How dare we make a comment on “human rights” in Cuba without commenting on the egregious “human rights” violations going on in Guantanamo where our own government is imprisoning 660 people, including children with no respect for any of their human rights, let alone their freedom of expression. (They aren’t librarians either, but maybe if they said they are they could get our attention. For us to make pronouncements about human rights in Cuba, without mentioning Guantanamo (just for starters) would raise the level of hypocrisy into the stratosphere. If we are sincere about the freedom of these dissidents, the first step for us as United States citizens -- is to demand that our own government *cease and desist* from policies of regime change against a peaceful, non-threatening neighboring country. Without the Helms-Burton, these dissidents would not be in prison. If the Helms-Burton were repealed tomorrow and the United States were to have a sane, peaceful relationship with Cuba, I believe these people would be pardoned. As Americans, our *first* responsibility is to address the complicity of our government in the current situation in Cuba; without this, we will be guilty of willful ignorance and a *truly* shameful level of national chauvinism and arrogance. I have no doubt that all the character-assassinating, communist -baiting, background-revealing arguments against those of us portrayed as “Castro sympathizers” (and worse)and “extremists” in “control of ALA” will be trotted out again in the press before San Diego. It’s part of the program. Our Association may very well be pressured, shamed, embarrassed, harassed into passing a resolution “against” Cuba at midwinter, despite the reality of the situation, but I still hope that will not be the case. If you read through this post, I thank you for your consideration, patience and colleagial respect!
|