|
Double Standards & Human Rights
Close Shave
General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte will remain a rightly reviled figure in the history of the twentieth century. Chile's dictator should have been brought to justice in 1998 for crimes against the human rights of his people. To our shame the Chilean people were betrayed again. Human rights are exactly that – the inalienable right of every person to be treated with respect and humanity by their government. Pinochet showed contempt for his own people for the best part of seventeen years and then for the rule of law.
In March 1998 Pinochet retired as Commander-in-Chief of Chile's Armed Forces. He travelled to Britain, purportedly for treatment. That left him open to a warrant for arrest issued by the Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón Real. Garzón wanted him extradited to face trial in Spain for his crimes. Coached on how to beat medical examination Pinochet hoodwinked the British authorities. Then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, ruled that he was too ill and frail to stand trial. The tyrant returned to Chile and celebrated with supporters. He made a miraculous recovery.
Pinochet imposed a shameful Constitution on the people of Chile – one which legitimised mass murder, torture and disappearances. The 1980 Constitution paved the way for Pinochet and his thugs to evade justice as it gave them immunity. Pinochet was allowed to continue as Commander-in-Chief after Patricio Aylwin became President in 1990 until 1998. The usurper Pinochet retired and became a Senator for Life, which was designed to protect him from prosecution.
|
|
|
|
The Godfather of Terrorism in the Americas |
 |
 |
 |
|
Ever heard of Luis Posada Carriles? You should have. He is is one of the most dangerous men in the USA and he is yet another example of US hypocrisy. While supposedly waging a war on terrorism, the USA provided a safe haven to an internationally wanted terrorist. Rendition and Guantánamo were not for him. Instead he became an asset for the CIA after they knew that he was a mass murderer.
On October 6th 1976 the first ever bombing of a commercial plane in flight occurred over Trinidad and Tobago. All 73 people on board died in the ensuing crash. Among the dead was the entire 24-member team of Cuban fencers who had just swept the gold medals at the Central American and Caribbean Championship. Posada Carriles planned and executed this outrage.
Team members included Jesús Gil Pérez, a Havana-born fencing veteran who helped many of his colleagues understand this wonderful sport. José Arencibia, a 23 year-old and winner of a gold and bronze medal at the games died in the atrocity as well. 22-year-old fencer Nancy Uranga Romagosa, hailed from Pinar del Rio. She was considered one of the new stars on the team and was pregnant with her first child. Milagro Peláez González was another up and coming hopeful for the team who won the silver medal at the games. They were all robbed of their futures by a vicious terrorist. [1]
Within days, law enforcement agencies had traced the origin of the bombs to Freddy Lugo and Hernán Ricardo Lozano. Both worked for Luis Posada Carriles and the boss, Carriles, had direct ties to the CIA, working for them in anti-Castro operations while stationed in Venezuela. Lugo and Lozano confessed, implicating Posada Carriles. A week later, Posada Carriles was arrested and jailed pending trial, but with the help of outsiders, he escaped in 1985 disguised as a priest.
Mr. Posada Carriles has worked for years for the CIA. In fact, he has been one of their star agents in their secret war against Fidel Castro and Cuba. His rap sheet of terrorist activities is longer than one can imagine. After his escape from Venezuela, he found his way to El Salvador where he continued his CIA activities against Cuba, bombing two hotels in 1997 among other crimes. Posada Carriles has served as one of the CIA’s most senior terrorists in their secret war against the government of Cuba.
He eventually emerged in the USA, having gained entry illegally, but this story is far more than just another illegal immigrant; it is much more sinister than that. It is a tale of breath-taking hypocrisy. In echoes of the infamous Al Capone story, the US authorities have finally brought Posada Carriles to trial. However, this internationally wanted mass-murderer is being tried for immigration fraud. The notorious Capone had Teflon skin too. He was finally jailed for tax evasion. Sad to see history repeating itself.
|
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 09 June 2011 23:48 |
Luis Posada Carriles is a convicted mass-murderer, but instead of being brought to justice for terrorist offences, he has thrived, even working for the CIA as a prized asset. The Teflon Terrorist has led a charmed life. On October 6th 1976 he planned and executed the outrage that cost 73 people their lives by blowing up a plane over Trinidad and Tobago. He was tried and convicted of that offence in Venezuela, but escaped and subsequently entered the USA illegally.
The 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation obliges the US to prosecute Posada for the alleged acts of terrorism if it does not extradite him. But today they refuse to do either. In addition to the airline outrage, Posada Carriles has committed other outrages with the blessing of the CIA.
In 2000, Posada was discovered in Panama with 200 pounds of explosives when a plot to assassinate visiting President Castro was uncovered. Then Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso pardoned him in 2004 and the following year, Posada requested political asylum from the United States where he continues to reside. Both Venezuela and Cuba have requested that Luis Posada be extradited to stand trial for the terrorist crimes he has committed.
Posada Carriles is on trial in the US, but not for his past terrorist activities. Instead, he is charged with lying to a customs official upon entry into the US in 2005. He was tried for such offences previously. U.S. district judge Kathleen Cardone dismissed seven counts of immigration fraud and ordered Posada's electronic bracelet removed citing fraud, deceit and trickery during the initial interview. However, this was eventually overturned. Today, he is on trial in Texas for the same offences.
While allegedly leading the War on Terror, prosecuting whistle-blowers, water-boarding suspects and reneging on promises to stop the perversion of due process at Guantánamo Bay, the US shield a known and convicted terrorist. Shamefully, they will prosecute a minor offence, while refusing to honour the extradition requests from Venezuela and Cuba or prosecute Posada Carriles for the terrorist acts that he has committed.
The hypocrisy of the War on Terror was exposed five years ago by the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, when he spoke at the UN in 2006. He labelled Posada 'the biggest terrorist of this continent,' and detailed the shameful practice that shielded Posada Carriles from justice. "Thanks to the CIA and government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government," Chávez said. 1
Former CIA-agent, Luis Posada Carriles is responsible for the deaths of as many as 100 innocent people in terrorist acts he fomented and carried out over the past 40 years. Dozens of families of these victims have been waiting since the early 1970s for justice to be served, yet the US government refuses to hear their cries. The hypocrisy of the US government to denounce some terrorists while aiding and abetting others continues to haunt American foreign policy and merely demonstrates the double standards that currently exist. Meanwhile, the mass-murderering Teflon Terrorist faces trial for lying to immigration officials rather than his terrorist crimes. So much for the War on Terror.
|
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 03 May 2011 16:26 |
|
|
The Times They Were A Changin' |
|
|
|
|
Cowardly Thugs
A change of name could not hide who they were. The NTO were thugs and they were racists and above all they were cowardly murderers. They claimed that they were defending their territory – defending it from what? This was not an invasion. Rolan Adams lived just two stops away from the bus stop in Thamesmead, South-East London where he was stabbed in the neck on his way back from a Youth Centre that the 15 year-old aspiring musician attended with his 14-year-old brother, Nathan.
Thamesmead was a depressing area with few opportunities at the time. Facilities were sparse at the time, but ironically, one of the few places that young people could go to the Hawksmoor Youth Centre, was targeted and attacked by young thugs. Temporarily it was closed. The film version of a Clockwork Orange was filmed in Thamesmead. That says it all. Thamesmead has had a facelift since the murder of Rolan Adams thrust it into the limelight.
“This isn't your bus stop,” Rolan was told by the thugs before they set upon him and Nathan. They claimed that the attack wasn't racist – just them defending their patch. The victims were black – their attackers white and they were bombarded with racist epithets as they ran for their lives.
Snatching Defeat
The worst of the racist thugs was a then 19 year-old Mark Thornborrow. He claimed that he was defending himself from attack by a Rolan with a knife he just happened to be carrying. No weapon was ever found on Rolan Adams. He had no history of gang-membership. He was a law-abiding young man attending a nearby youth centre.
Having murdered him in a cowardly, his memory was the next target. Territorialism, rather than racism was said to be the motive. Nonsense. Rolan was attacked by racists as was Nathan. Stephen Borland exposed the lie as did Nathan. It should have been investigated as a racist murder. It should have been prosecuted as a racist murder. Now such a crime would be investigated in this manner. Institutional racism was rife in this inquiry.
Both Thamesmead Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) played into the hands of racists. “The CPS connived to remove racism from the murder,” Rolan's father Richard said at the time. Shamefully, for British justice he was right. Equally shamefully, he was ignored then as both police and CPS claimed victory with the conviction of racist thug Mark Thornborrow. Few victories resemble defeat more.
|
The murder of Stephen Lawrence is a tragedy on every level. Perhaps it could not have been prevented, but the travesty of an investigation could have been if the lessons of the murder of Rolan Adams in 1991 had been learned. The Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) claimed victory because Mark Thornborrow was found guilty.
If this was a victory, it occurred in spite of both organisations, not because of them. Police developed a case-scenario that removed racism from the crime. Why? Only the racist-epithet hurling thugs claimed that it was not racist. Thornborrow – racist to the end – claimed that he had heard that 'n****rs' were coming to the area, so he armed himself with a butterfly knife. Thornborrow's defence counsel, Michael Lawson, even suggested that calling a black person 'a black bastard' was not necessarily racist.
His Honour Judge Kenneth Richardson, presided over the trial, which laid bare the racism of the crimes and also the shamefully racist conniving of police and CPS. Their collusion handed an undeserved defence of Thornborrow's defence. The cowardly killer brazenly claimed that racism played no part in the crime – they were just defending their patch. Worse still he was defending himself.
Collusion
The police's view of the crime reflected the opinion of the perpetrators. The CPS bought into this nonsense and removed the real motive from the crime. They presented it as a territorial dispute rather than the despicable hate-crime that it was. The investigation was shoddy, betraying the institutional racism prevalent at the time.
The Metropolitan Police was eventually forced to confront its failings during the inquiry into their handling of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Sir Paul Condon, then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police accepted the definition and the force moved on. The CPS evaded the scrutiny that it should have faced – a failing that could be seen in 1991.
Why did it rely exclusively on the police's view of the murder of Rolan Adams, or ignore evidence that it was a racist murder? It had powers to require further work to be conducted. It failed to do so. It allowed its counsel to remove racism from the murder. It chose the comfort of collusion that protected racist thugs. It connived to remove the racism from the murder.
The CPS proved by its actions in the Rolan Adams Inquiry that it was as institutionally racist as the police, but unlike them, it did not confront or even accept its failings. Why was this outrage tolerated? Had a public inquiry been held into the racist murder of Rolan Adams and the shameful investigation and prosecution that followed, Stephen Lawrence's family may have seen justice done, as they had a right to expect.
|
The Mean Streets of Thamesmead
I didn't know it then, but twenty years ago today a tragedy occurred that changed the course of my life. It was the second pivotal event for me that month. The first is no secret – well actually it is as for legal reasons I can't talk about the case that established my reputation and helped convince me of the need for the Fitted-In Project, even if I didn't know that it would become that.
But while that case benefited from an in depth investigation that changed the course of British legal history, the second event is claimed as a triumph for British justice. It really shouldn't be seen that way. It should be seen as an indictment of a society that piled an outrage upon a tragedy. That a 15 year-old boy could lose his life waiting for a bus in Thamesmead, South-East London, because he was black is shameful. His 14 year-old brother was also attacked, but left with the trauma of seeing his brother murdered. Enraged by this senseless crime, he reacted, confronting the murderers of his brother. That our society allows a vulnerable boy, who should have been moving through adolescence to adulthood, to be treated in this manner dehumanises and disgraces us all.
Unsupported Victims
There was no effective Victim Support then. This was in the days before the term institutional racism was accepted by the police and other agencies of law enforcement. It happened when few disputed that the British National Party was anything but a bunch of vicious racist thugs. They had established a so-called bookshop in nearby Welling previously.
It resulted in a marked increase in racist attacks, carefully monitored and opposed by the sadly defunct Greenwich Action Committee Against Racist Attacks (GACARA). Its Co-ordinator, Dev Barrah had made a chilling prediction. If something wasn't done and fast a racist murder would happen. The following day a group of cowardly racist thugs attacked Rolan and Nathan Adams. Hurling N-bombs like there was no tomorrow the ignorant thugs attacked a law-abiding young man and thrust his reluctant father into the limelight.
Richard Adams never courted fame or publicity. The one thing he wanted most in the world he could never have – his son back. The vultures circled, keen to pick the carcass of political opportunity clean and having gorged themselves on the grief of a courageous family, they moved on to the next cause célèbre. Few emerge from this tawdry story with credit, but a worthy few do. Twenty years on middle aged adults who cut their political teeth resisting racist hate-crimes on the mean streets of Thamesmead returned to pay their respects to a young man who was never allowed the chance to grow into the man he should have been – an example to us all. Twenty years ago today Rolan Adams was murdered by cowardly racist thugs, but he will never be forgotten.
|
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 22 February 2011 12:00 |
Twenty years ago today Rolan Adams was murdered by cowardly racist thugs, but he will never be forgotten.
Ignorance
A gang of at least eight racist thugs attacked two defenceless black youths, making their way home from a youth club in Thamesmead, South-East London in the evening of February 21st 1991. It changed the lives of Richard and Audrey Adams forever. Instead of being allowed to grieve their loss, the thugs made sure that Rolan would never see 16 and Nathan would be scarred life. Loren was just seven then. How do you tell a child that they will never see their brother again, especially when it was so callous and senseless?
The institutionally racist Thamesmead Police decided that territorialism was the main motive for the attack – nonsense. The attackers were white thugs with a history of racist crimes. Some of them were on bail for the violent attack on a teenage Marlon Conton at the time. It mattered not a whit to police or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Both connived to remove racism from the murder, but that was not the only crime committed that night. Nathan was also attacked. The same youths evaded all sanction for that crime. Police and CPS were not interested in prosecuting them for that.
More Ignorance
Nathan reacted angrily. He returned to Thamesmead, seeking to confront the thugs who robbed him of his elder brother. At 14 he had to live with the trauma and guilt of surviving the attack. There was no Victim Support for him. There was no assistance for him. He had to rely on his family to keep him strong and level-headed. It was a hard task and it took time and the whole family had been robbed of their birthright.
Police insisted that territorialism was the most important feature of the attack. What a crock? And to its eternal disgrace the CPS relied exclusively on the police view of the crime and evidence gathered by them. Nathan was no fool. He knew that police were removing the most important feature of the crime – a factor that would now be considered a serious aggravating feature of the crime – racism. An independent witness, Stephen Borland, saw the attack. He also heard it. His testimony leaves no room for doubt as Borland heard the thugs hurl numerous racist expletives at the two black boys. This was undoubtedly a racist murder and also a racist attack.
But where did police and the CPS get the idea that it was not a racist murder in the first place? Borland made it clear that it was a racist attack and he had no axe to grind. Nathan was adamant that he had survived a murderous racist attack. The only people who said that it was not racist were the racist thugs who committed the hate crimes. The fact that both the police and CPS believed lying racist thugs exposes shameful institutional racism and added to the ordeal of Nathan and his family. Shame on them!
|
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 22 February 2011 12:27 |
|
|
Double Standards (Part One) |
|
|
|
|
Hypocrisy
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing of the PamAm flight over Lockerbie in Scotland, on 21 December 1988. He was released from Greenock Prison on compassionate grounds on 20 August 2009, having served eight and a half years of his 27 year sentence. al-Megrahi has always protested his innocence, but that is not what we are looking at here.
Is the outrage over the release of al-Megrahi justified?
Wrong question in my opinion.
Remember a decade ago when the reviled dictator Augusto Pinoche was facing extradition from Britain to an allied nation? Was there any outrage from the people so outraged now when Britain refused the warrant, claiming that the tyrant was too old and frail to face trial? He returned to Chile where he made a 'miraculous' recovery.
Augusto Pinochet was replaced as President of Chile in 1990, having imposed immunity from prosecution for his litany of crimes. But he had miscalculated. International law was not bound by the grant of immunity. Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón decided to test that in practice by applying that country's Universal Jurisdiction principle, which hold that some crimes are so grave they can be tried anywhere, regardless of where they occurred.. He wanted Pinochet to face trial over the brutal crimes committed against the Chilean people. Up to 30,000 people disappeared or were murdered, including public torture and executions following the American backed coup of September 1973.
He was arrested in Britain in 1998 on a warrant issued in Spain Pinochet was coached on how to convince doctors that he was too old and frail to face trial. Among his vociferous supporters then was Baroness Thatcher – she had also backed the thug when he terrorised his people and robbed them blind. After eighteen months the con worked. He was allowed to go back to Chile. Where was the outrage over this shameful con? Where was the much vaunted concern for human rights and the laws of a friendly allied nation then?
Outrage
Meanwhile, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill has taken considerable flak for his decision to free the only person ever convicted over the worst terrorist outrage in Britain – the blowing up of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 2002. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi has consistently protested his innocence, but dropped an application to have his case heard on appeal again. He was released to 'die' in Libya as the then Labour government, fearing a backlash on trade with Libya, didn't want him dying in a British jail, MacAskill insists that the decision to release al-Megrahi in 2009, said to be dying of cancer, was made on compassionate grounds, although the stench of a murky deal persisted. The Coalition government ordered an inquiry, chaired by Sir Gus O'Donnell, which concluded that the previous government desired al-Megrahi's release and did all it could to obtain it. There was outrage in America and from conservatives here. But what about Pinochet being allowed to leave on health grounds that were not true? Where's the outrage?
|
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:55 |
|
|
Double Standards (Part Two) |
|
|
|
|
The Rehearsals
Augusto Pinochet seized power in Chile in September 1973 after a vicious coup d'etat. He had been Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces for a month. Pinochet succeeded General Carlos Prats González, who had been undermined from within, but murky practices began far earlier. Prats became Commander-in-Chief in 1970, following the assassination of his predecessor General René Schneider Cherau.
Schneider simply had to go as he stood in the way of murky plans to circumvent the democratic process. In 1969 Schneider, then the Army's Head of Staff, played a major part in preventing General Roberto Viaux Marambio's coup attempt – the Tacnazo Insurrection. Negotiations resulted in the retirement of the then Commander-in-Chief and minister of Defence, increases in army salaries and also the military budget. General Viaux then surrendered. Schneider forced Frei to agree the terms and followed through in 1970. It secured his personal popularity in the military, but earned him enemies too as Schneider believed in the Constitution and would die defending it if need be.
Obstacle
The pay of generals increased from six times the minimum wage to double that. Schneider ensured that the terms of the Tacno agreement were kept. However, Viaux had developed a taste for coups. The Socialist leader Salvador Allende won the general election in September 1970. The US government of Richard Nixon, whose contempt for democracy would be shown by his involvement in the infamous Watergate Conspiracy before long, wanted Allende out of the way before he even took office.
Viaux knew that Schneider would not tolerate a coup, so he had to go. Then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, explored the possibility of a coup with Viaux. He pulled the plug on it, believing that it could not succeed and 'nothing was worse than a failed coup.' Time would prove that a successful coup – Pinochet's – was far worse on every level.
Undeterred Viaux decided that the biggest obstacle was Schneider and that he could not be allowed to block his plans for a military junta with himself at the head. Well, that was easily solved by a few bullets. On October 22nd 1970 Schneider was ambushed in Santiago. General Schneider respected the Constitution to such an extent that he would not tolerate a coup at all, so there was no other way to stop Allende taking power than eliminating his Commander-in-Chief. Who cared if that was illegal and who cared if the price of a coup was murder, disappearances, torture, repression and a vicious and venal kleptocracy? Viaux certainly didn't and nor did Kissinger. Where was the respect for human rights and democratic values then?
|
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 16:23 |
|
|
Double Standards (Part Three) |
|
|
|
|
The Decision
General Roberto Viaux Marambio had attempted a coup in 1969. He got what he wanted – improved pay for generals and a bigger budget for the military, but at a price. He had to surrender, yet avoided jail. Viaux planned the ultimate promotion for himself through another coup attempt. Salvador Allende had been elected President of Chile and he was left-wing. The people of Chile had elected him, but Viaux had other intentions. no intention of allowing him to take power.
Viaux was determined to ensure that this did not happen – that meant another coup, this time as a pre-emptive strike. US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had considered backing Viaux's attempt, but concluded that it was doomed to fail and that there was 'nothing worse than a failed coup.' Without direct support Viaux had to decide what to do. Should he risk going ahead anyway, knowing that support would come later if he succeeded and prison was the reward for failure. His decision made a coup all but inevitable.
General René Schneider Cherau – the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces respected democratic values. He had to be eliminated if Allende was to be prevented from taking power, or overthrown if that could not be arranged in time.
Removing The Obstacle
General Schneider's car was ambushed in Santiago on October 22nd 1970. He drew his gun and tried to fight back, but he was hit several times at point blank range. Schneider was rushed to hospital, but he stood no chance of survival. Three days later the death knell for Chilean democracy sounded as Schneider succumbed to his injuries.
Veteran coup plotter and right-wing enemy of democratic values Viaux was responsible for Schneider's murder and, according to the journalist Christopher Hitchens, Kissinger conspired with Viaux to arrange it. The Chilean people had had the audacity to not only elect Allende, but expect him to be allowed to govern. That would not be tolerated simply because of the irresponsibility of the Chilean people as Kissinger termed it. The stage was set for a vicious coup and almost two decades of crimes against humanity, but first Viaux had to be dealt with.
He went to jail, but would only serve a paltry three years. Schneider's successor, General Carlos Prats González, was forced to resign as Commander-in-Chief in August 1973 – the same month that Viaux was freed, which was agreed on condition that he go into exile. He went to Paraguay, which was the ruled by military dictator General Alfredo Stroessner and provided a safe haven to the notorious war criminals Josef Mengele and Klause Barbie among others.
Meanwhile, there was a coup to organise and if the Chilean people didn't like it that was a small price to pay as far as Kissinger was concerned. “The Lain temperament is rather volatile by nature,” he informed then President Richard Nixon. “[It] does not promote peaceful development.” It remains beyond our understanding how subjecting Chileans to Pinochet's thuggery promoted peaceful development. But first the country had to be destabilised and its economy wrecked. Allende could not be allowed to succeed under any circumstances.
|
|
|
Double Standards (Part Four) |
|
|
|
|
Destabilising Democratic Values
General René Schneider Cherau was dead. The Commander-in-Chief of Chile's Armed forces supported the Constitution. There would be no coups on his watch. He was succeeded by General Carlos Prats González, who also respected the Constitution. He too had to go if there was to be a coup, but the Chilean military among others were revolted by Schneider's assassination. If the US government thought that removing Schneider was all that was required, they soon learned that they had to think again.
Both it and potential coup leaders rapidly learned lessons from the failed coups led by General Roberto Viaux Marambio. Without active, but covert US support it was doomed and without destabilising Chile's economy and Allende the conditions would not be right either. The Americans had to harass Salvador Allende, politically, diplomatically and economically before any coup could possibly succeed.
American officials regarded Allende as a communist threat before he had even taken power. Before the election in 1970, their Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry expressed his opinion to his government. “[An Allende government] would not differ significantly in international policy or style from most communist regimes.” Korry exaggerated the 'threat' posed by Allende and passed on a paranoid and fundamentally misinformed opinion of his intentions. Allende spoke of a Chilean route to socialism, whereas Korry told his government that Allende's programme outdid Castro's in 1958 in terms of communist intent. The level of ignorance was staggering. Castro was no communist in 1958.
A Precedent in Venality and Ignorance
Alejandro (Fidel) Castro Ruz was not even a socialist in 1958. Castro was a nationalist who wanted close ties to the USA. He returned to Cuba in 1956 a revolutionary nationalist – driven to those conclusions by the policies of Batista, whose concessions to American corporations and the Mafia, along with repression were destroying Cuba.
Batista's wretched policies made revolution all but inevitable. However, the direction it would take was up to the US administration. If Castro was supported with trade and diplomatic relations it would have been a nationalistic administration with close ties to the USA. It was hardly Castro's fault that did not happen, as rather than develop those ties with Castro at a time when it would have resulted in Cuba remaining in their camp, US foreign policy drove Castro leftward. US policy was disastrous, fomenting and supporting brutal dictatorships throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. It had a long history of interference and contempt for basic human rights of the people of other nations.
The US government had propped up the despicable US-backed regime of Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar twice. The corrupt dictator-in the-making had been trailing a distant third in elections in 1952, so the US government decided to take no chances. It supported a coup led by Batista, whose brutality and venality disgusted Cubans, as he turned the island into a playground for Americans. Among those to benefit were the American Mafia. Where was the concern for democracy, human rights and good governance during Batista's misrule?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
Like Fitted In?
|
Double Standards
