A Challenge

Some are so blind that they choose deliberately not to see.

Before I get into why that is (see below the fold for that and the challenge), I'd like to comment very briefly about the announcement that Fidel Castro is retiring. What will happen? Probably not much, but suffice it to say that Raul Castro's nickname, El Chino, is no coincidence.

I made a variety of comments about this soft-headed post by Chris Bertram concerning Castro's resignation. One of my responses is in moderation so I will reproduce it below:

I reiterate; this Manichean, Castro-demon view of yours makes little sense as history and only makes sense politically as providing political ammunition for reactionaries and red-baiters.

Oh, piffle. I don't accept your efforts to define deviancy down. Jorge Valls is hardly a reactionary and red baiter. Do you even know who he is? He spent 20 years in Castro's prisons and was a prisoner of conscience. Does this sound like a red-baiter or reactionary?

We need to construct the peace. This is not possible without reaffirming the essential values of the Cuban Revolution, from the dawn of the independentistas down to the present time. But these cannot be made except in a 'social state of rights.' For that reason we insist on this work of persuasion towards those who feel that the nation is both their 'agony and duty.'

The ultimate truth on how the national destiny must be satisfied not is neither held by the government or those not in government. It is, of necessity, the responsibility of all of us who want a country for the good of all. We call for the creation of society where our children and grandsons will be proud of their parents and grandparents because they knew to put the good of all, that is the nation, over their own particular motives.

We, the Social-Revolutionaries, offer our project for consideration by all Cubans. We make ourselves available for productive and creative dialogue. We present our reasons and ideas, and we will take into account the reasons and ideas presented to us, as much from the government as from those not in power. When someone rejects us be it through obfuscation or fear we insist, we reflect, in order to advance in our capacity of conviction.

The government, to initiate the process, must decree an ample political amnesty, and be committed to summon a sovereign National Constituent Assembly. The amnesty, because neither consensus nor common action are possible while there are prisoners as a consequence of the confrontation we have suffered, and the National Constituent Assembly, because it is the only suitable instrument to subscribe to the new national pact and thus to recover the state of legitimacy that was left in pieces on 10 March 1952.

Keep trying to pigeonhole me Daniel, if it gives you the warm tinglies. I know how full of it you are and it really doesn't bother me. Don't blame me for the fact that you are unable to hold the thoughts in your head that US policy towards Cuba has been horribly wrong since day one and that the repressive leadership of Fidel Castro has also been horribly wrong.

As for Chavez, yeah I overestimated him. Obviously he's little more than a blowhard whose mismanagement of his country's resources is now leading to food shortages. As for "siding with people", Chavez has embraced Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, Lukashenko and Mugabe as compatriots. Who looks stupid now?

[On Pinochet]

He lost the plebiscite and handed over power – peacefully – to a democratic government.

Utter myth. He left office kicking and screaming comparing himself to Jesus Christ and on the night of the plebiscite, when it was clear that he was losing, he wanted to send the troops out on the street, but was overruled by the other junta members.

I am so very tired of this tiresome argument: that Castro's abuses notwithstanding, he did improve literacy and health care in Cuba. I am equally tired of the pro-Pinochet argument that sure, he disappeared some people, but he helped develop Chile into the economic powerhouse it is today ( debatable argument, by the way).

So here's my challenge: I will donate $200 to the charity of their choice to anyone who can provide an example  in which someone used successfully as an affirmative defense in a trial for human rights abuses or war crimes, the argument that improving the lives of their citizens  - in a manner such as Pinochet and Castro have been praise for by their acolytes - against charges of crimes against humanity.

The only caveat here is that it has to be post WWII. With the exception of some of the Geneva Conventions, there was precious little on international human rights standards prior to WWII.