This spring marks the third anniversary of the wave of repression in which Fidel Castro's regime arrested and handed down long sentences to 75 leading Cuban dissidents. Soon afterward, many friends and I formed the International Committee for Democracy in Cuba.
The bravery of those who found their social conscience, overcame fear and stood up to communist dictatorship remains fresh in my memory. It reminds me of the jingle of keys that rang out on Prague's Wenceslas Square -- and later around the rest of what was then Czechoslovakia -- in the autumn of 1989.
This is why I rang keys during the conference calling for democracy in Cuba that our committee held in Prague three years ago. I wanted to draw the international community's attention to the human-rights situation in Cuba, to support that country's opposition and to encourage pro-democracy forces. The EU then introduced diplomatic sanctions, albeit mostly symbolic, against Castro's regime.
Soon after, however, a contrary position came to the fore. The EU opened a dialogue with the Cuban regime, sanctions were conditionally suspended, and it was even made clear to dissidents that they were not welcome at the embassies of several democratic countries. Cowardly compromise and political alibis -- as so often in history -- defeated a principled position. In return, the Cuban regime made a sham gesture by releasing a small number of the prisoners of conscience -- mostly those who were tortured and seriously ill -- who the regime most feared would die in its notorious prisons.
Those of us who live in Europe's new post-communist democracies experienced similar political deals when we lived behind the former Iron Curtain. We are also extremely familiar with the argument that European policies have not led to any mass arrests in Cuba. But democracy has shown weakness and the Cuban regime has in turn adapted its tactics.
Respected organizations like Reporters without Borders and Amnesty International have collected ample evidence of violence and intimidation against freethinking Cubans, who can expect a different kind of ring than that from jangling keys. Their cases often do not end in courts but in hospitals. Groups of "fighters for the revolution" -- in reality, the Cuban secret police -- brutally attack their political opponents and accuse them of absurd crimes in an effort to intimidate them or to force them to emigrate. On the island, such planned harassments are called actos de repudio -- "acts of rejection."
Political violence that creates the impression of mere street crime is never easy to prove, unlike jail terms of several years, and therefore it does not receive due attention from the world. However, thousands of former political prisoners in central and eastern Europe can attest to the fact that a kick from a secret policeman on the street hurts just as much as a kick from a warden behind prison gates.
The powerlessness of the victim of state-organized street fights and threats against his family is experienced in the same way as the powerlessness of somebody harassed during a state security investigation. Many European politicians who have sought to see the situation on the ground have been barred in recent years.
Some Europeans apparently regard Cuba as a faraway country whose fate they need take no interest in, because they have problems of their own. But what Cubans are enduring today is part of our own European history. Who better than Europeans, who brought communism to life, exported it to the world and then paid dearly for it over many decades, know better about the torments inflicted upon the Cuban people?
Humanity will pay the price for communism until such a time as we learn to stand up to it with all political responsibility and decisiveness. We have many opportunities to do so in Europe and Cuba. And it is no surprise that the new member countries of the EU have brought to Europe fresh historical experience, and with it far less understanding for and tolerance of concession and compromise.
Representatives of the EU's member states will meet in Brussels in the middle of next month to review a common policy toward Cuba. European diplomats should weigh up the consequences of accommodating Castro's regime. They should show that they will neither ignore his practices nor neglect the suffering of Cuban prisoners of conscience. We must never forget the seemingly anonymous victims of Castro's "acts of rejection."
Vaclav Havel, is a former president of the Czech Republic and a founder of the International Committee for Democracy in Cuba. Madeleine Albright is a former US secretary of state, Andri Glucksmann is a French philosopher, Arpad Goncz is a former president of Hungary, Vytautas Landsbergis is a former president of Lithuania and Adam Michnik, a former Polish dissident, is editor-in-chief of Gazeta Wyborcza.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Election seasons expose societal divisions and contrasting visions about the future of Taiwan. They also offer opportunities for leaders to forge unity around practical ideas for strengthening Taiwan’s resilience. Beijing has in the past sought to exacerbate divisions within Taiwan. For Beijing, a divided Taiwan is less likely to pursue permanent separation. It also is more manipulatable than a united Taiwan. A divided polity has lower trust in government institutions and diminished capacity to solve societal challenges. As my co-authors Richard Bush, Bonnie Glaser, and I recently wrote in our book US-Taiwan Relations: Will China’s Challenge Lead to a Crisis?, “Beijing wants
Taiwan has never had a president who is not from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Could next year’s presidential election put a third-party candidate in office? The contenders who have thrown their hats into the ring are Vice President William Lai (賴清德) of the DPP, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). A monthly poll released by my-formosa.com on Monday showed support for Hou nosediving from 26 percent to 18.3 percent, the lowest among the three presidential hopefuls. It was a surprising
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its candidate for next year’s presidential election. The selection process was replete with controversy, mainly because the KMT has never stipulated a set of protocols for its presidential nominations. Yet, viewed from a historical perspective, the KMT has improved to some extent. There are two fundamental differences between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP): First, the DPP believes that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign country with independent autonomy, meaning that Taiwan and China are two different entities. The KMT, on the
The presidential election is to be held concurrently with the legislative elections in January next year. While former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration was fraught with challenges, as he never commanded a legislative majority, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) did not have this problem. In her two terms in office, she has been able to carry out her vision and policies and thereby bear full responsibility for her performance. As a result, the public is not only waiting on tenterhooks to see the results of the presidential election, but also whether the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will be able to hold