[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[EXTEN]
[Pages 28871-28872]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 28871]]

                     COUNCIL ON HEMISPHERIC AFFAIRS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 4, 1999

  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the 
attached articles, ``One Commission To Be Proud of'' and ``The Effect 
of the U.S. Embargo on Cuban Health Care in Cuba'', in the 
Congressional Record.
  Mr. Speaker, ever since its creation in the wake of the 1959 Cuban 
Revolution, the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human 
Rights has played an extraordinary role in promoting justice on the 
continent. The Commission and the Court have consistently furthered 
this country's authentic national interests by helping oppressed 
populations defend themselves against dictatorships and by working for 
the establishment of democratic norms.
  However, this institution finds itself at a critical juncture and 
needs political support. Human rights crimes are sill being perpetrated 
throughout the hemisphere, yet the chronic under-funding of these OAS 
bodies threatens their effectiveness. Furthermore, Peru's recent 
withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the Court deserves maximum 
condemnation and should not be allowed to set a precedent for those 
governments hoping to escape accountability. The United States should 
lead by example and finally ratify the Inter-American Convention on 
Human Rights and accept the jurisdiction of the Court.
  The following research memorandum was authored by Eric Angles, a 
Research Fellow with the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric 
Affairs (COHA). This timely and trenchant article gives credit to the 
Inter-American System for its accomplishments, and emphasizes how 
pivotal U.S. backing is to its success.

                     One Commission To Be Proud Of

   (By Eric Angles, Research Fellow, council on Hemispheric Affairs)

       Pinochet and Milosevic indicted for their crimes; a ``just 
     war'' waged in the Balkans at heavy political, diplomatic and 
     military risk; the human rights debate has clearly shifted 
     gears. Gone is the era when egregious patterns of abuses 
     remained concealed behind sacrosanct national borders, or 
     neatly rhetoricized away by Cold War realpolitik. At last 
     public indignation is being heeded. This is a very positive 
     sign, with much credit being owed to intrepid journalists and 
     relentless human rights promoters, those good men and women 
     in gray.
       But plaudits--a great deal of them--must also go to a more 
     discrete actor, the Inter-American Commission on Human 
     Rights. Ironically, since its founding in 1959 by the 
     Organization of American States, some of its backers have 
     belonged among the world's most flagrant offenders; and the 
     Commission has certainly had to struggle for a measure of 
     independence. Early on, periodic in loco visits to human 
     rights Gethsemane and hard-hitting country reports proved 
     effective in at least publicizing the cruelties of barbarous 
     regimes. Scores of lives were doubtlessly saved during the 
     junta years owing to the boldness of these investigative 
     missions. But new and impressive accomplishments in the 1990s 
     have since firmly entrenched the crucial role of the 
     Commission and its judicial arm, the Inter-American Court, in 
     promoting justice throughout the Americas.
       Most far-reaching is a mechanism whereby individuals 
     deprived of their rights can lodge a petition. Public 
     hearings are then held and embarrassing rulings often 
     rendered. Over twelve thousand cases have been considered 
     since 1965, primarily involving killings, torture and 
     ``disappearances''. More complex issues are not increasingly 
     addressed, such as the rights of women and indigenous 
     populations. Not only have wrongs been condemned and at least 
     partly redressed; Commission and Court decisions have set 
     invaluable standards for use by other international human 
     rights bodies under the United Nations, European and African 
     systems.
       Just as tellingly perhaps, recalcitrant states now defend 
     themselves with unprecedented ferocity when chastised by a 
     jurisdiction which, after all, they once opted into. In the 
     early years, offenders largely ignored unfavorable findings. 
     By contrast, a fulminating President Fujimori found it 
     necessary to withdraw Peru from the Court's competence rather 
     than face additional rulings against the country's summary 
     military trials--one of whose victims was young U.S. national 
     Lori Berenson, sentenced for life in 1996 without even a 
     shred of due process. Fujimori's outrageous move will only 
     serve to isolate Peru, and to little avail since Commission 
     proceedings cannot be blocked short of renouncing OAS 
     membership. Simply put, avoidance strategies are fast running 
     out for renegade leaders.
       The Inter-American system's effectiveness derives at least 
     in part from heightened political support since the end of 
     the Cold War. But if basic principles of justice are being 
     enforced and not merely exalted, above all it is due to the 
     efforts and persistence of the Commission. Ambiguously 
     comprised of legal experts nominated by governments, it could 
     easily have remained the typical OAS cipher. Yet skillful 
     navigation by a deft leadership and expert staff has 
     admirably defied the odds. ``Quasi-judicial'' prerogatives 
     provide it with a uniquely effective blend of political 
     initiative--most notably the power to throw the spotlight on 
     a selected issue or country--and the authority to set legal 
     precedent. At the same time, the Commission has displayed an 
     even-handedness that has done wonders for its credibility: a 
     case in point was the 1999 report on Columbia detailing 
     wrongdoings both by government and guerrilla forces.
       Commission and Court practice also has shown remarkable 
     boldness and creativity. The landmark 1988 Velazquez 
     Rodriguez judgment against Honduras laid out key legal 
     definitions in such a way as to limit procedural escape 
     routes for guilty parties. Other international norms like the 
     humanitarian conventions of Geneva are also commonly invoked 
     when necessary. In no small measure, this is contributing to 
     the slow rise of universal accountability for governments who 
     pull out the nails of their own citizens.
       Curiously, these hard-won accomplishments have remained 
     mostly uncelebrated, especially in the U.S., which does not 
     recognize the Court and all but ignores adverse 
     determinations by the Commission. Aren't we too quick to take 
     for granted justice enforced on behalf of our countrymen, 
     such as Matthew Blake, murdered by agents of the Guatemalan 
     state in the early 1980s? There is no question that when 
     provided U.S. backing will be pivotal if full-fledged 
     judicial mechanisms are one day to emerge for the regional 
     and global protection of human rights. Congress' antiquated 
     aversion to international adjudication sits oddly indeed 
     alongside the lofty foreign policy goals articulated by 
     Capitol Hill leaders and Presidents alike.
       Success is rarely self-perpetuating. At under three million 
     dollars a year the Commission is absurdly under-funded in the 
     light of its expanding mission. Worse still, a group of 
     disgruntled OAS states very nearly managed to brush back much 
     of its power two years ago, thwarted only by the timely 
     mobilization of concerned private groups. With malefactor 
     states and Fujimori-like leaders waiting to bushwhack it at 
     every corner, public support remains crucial to the 
     furtherance of the Commission's outstanding work into the 
     next century.

  Mr. Speaker, legislation such as the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) 
and the 1996 Helms-Burton Act have tightened the U.S. embargo against 
Cuba to the point that has it negatively effected the health of Cuban 
civilians and has profoundly damaged the country's revolutionary health 
care system and medical research institutes. Current U.S. policy 
towards Cuba severely restricts the export of medicine, the medical 
supplies and technology to the island by demanding a political test 
which it is anticipated that Cuban authorities will continue to reject. 
The Warner-Dodd bill in the Senate and the Freedom to Market Act in the 
House would reevaluate the embargo and remove restrictions on the sale 
of grain, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. These measures were 
initiated partially in response to numerous studies reporting that the 
health of Cuban citizens has deteriorated greatly, and hospitals are in 
dire need of supplies due to the embargo.
  The following research memorandum was authorized by David Roberts, a 
Research Associate with the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric 
Affairs (COHA). It represents an elaborated version of an article 
recently published in COHA's biweekly publication, the Washington 
Report on the Hemisphere. This timely and pertinent article 
investigates the effect that U.S. policy has had on the Cuban health 
care system and the well-being of the Cuban populace.

          The Effect of the U.S. Embargo on Cuban Health Care

 (By David Roberts, Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs)

       Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) 
     have reintroduced a bill designed to remove restrictions on 
     the sale of grain, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. The 
     U.S. embargo currently prohibits all trade with the island 
     including restrictions on humanitarian aid such as medicine 
     and food. Cuba is now the only nation worldwide denied access 
     to medical supplies as part of a U.S. embargo. The Warner-
     Dodd bill and its sister measure in the House, the Freedom to 
     Market Act (HR 212), were initiated this year in order to 
     alleviate the suffering caused by the embargo against Cuban 
     civilians that has been in place for nearly 40 years.
       Since 1959, the U.S. government has unsuccessfully tried to 
     unseat Castro by any means ranging from economic sanctions to 
     assassination attempts. In recent years, Washington has 
     increased pressure on Castro, enacting legislation such as 
     the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) and the 1996 Helms-Burton 
     measure, whose net result has

[[Page 28872]]

     been to impede the exportation of medicines and medical 
     technology to Cuba. These regulations have discouraged the 
     transfer of health care resources through purposely 
     restrictive licensing procedures and denying U.S. visas to, 
     and even suing, executives of foreign companies found to be 
     trading with the island. The collapse of the Soviet Union and 
     the Eastern bloc, Cuba's principal benefactors, exacerbated 
     the damaging effects of U.S. sanctions. As a result, health 
     conditions in Cuba have deteriorated significantly.
       Prior to the Warner-Dodd bill, the Dodd-Torres legislation 
     in 1998 was introduced which was aimed at removing the 
     provision of food and medicine from the U.S. sanctions list. 
     The act lost its viability when Senate amendments emasculated 
     the measure, turning the proposed bill into a vehicle for 
     that would make matters worse for Cuba. Hostile riders to the 
     bill permitted sanctions against ``terrorist'' nations that 
     deny access to food, medicine or medical care as a means of 
     coercion or punishment of a segment of the local populace, 
     effectively invalidating the intentions of the bill's 
     sponsors. Although Cuba has faced international pressure over 
     its flagging human rights record, Havana officials maintain 
     in return that the U.S. embargo has inflicted far more 
     grievous rights violations against Cubans. Critics of the 
     embargo condemn its hypocritical nature because it denies 
     Cuba access to food and medicine as a form of coercion, while 
     the U.S. simultaneously chastises Havana for not providing 
     the population with these essential products. Although the 
     Clinton administration recently ended similar policies 
     against Iran, Libya and Sudan, arguing that ``food should not 
     be used as a foreign policy tool,'' the administration 
     maintains a much more severe embargo including both food and 
     medical supplies against Cuba.


                  A History of guaranteed health care

       Obsessed with eliminating ``human, social and economic 
     underdevelopment,'' Castro revolutionized the country's 
     medical system in 1959, introducing comprehensive free health 
     care for all Cubans. For several decades this system was 
     considered a model for other Third World nations. The 
     country's constitution guarantees citizens the right to free 
     medical treatment and preventive care. The health delivery 
     system focuses on women's health, providing programs for the 
     early detection of breast and cervical cancer, prenatal care, 
     and free child immunization. Previously, when medicines were 
     available, state pharmacies filled prescriptions for free as 
     well as formulated vaccines which were supplied by the 
     bustling domestic drug manufacturing industry.
       Cuba's progressive health care policy propelled the 
     country's successful and internationally acclaimed 
     biotechnology and pharmacology export industries. The 
     island's 11 ``world class'' research institutions made 
     impressive advances, some of which were greatly respected by 
     the international medical community. These institutes have 
     been credited with developing innovative medical 
     breakthroughs including vaccines for hepatitis-B and 
     meningitis-B. In fact, Cuba is the sole producer of a vaccine 
     for meningitis-B that has been proven to reduce the incidence 
     of the disease by 93%. The institute also developed a 
     surgical cure for retinitis pigmentosa, a genetic disorder 
     that may lead to blindness or tunnel vision.


                    long-term effects on the embargo

       While Cuban authorities maintain their resolve to provide 
     the populace with greatly needed medical care, highly 
     qualified doctors still face long lines of patients with only 
     antiquated technology to treat them. Even the medicines 
     produced by the pharmacology industry are difficult to obtain 
     because imports of their components have been restricted by 
     the blockade. Despite the previous successes posted by the 
     pharmacology industry, island drug store shelves are now 
     empty. Although recent changes have allowed for some medical 
     sales to Cuba, each transaction must receive prior approval 
     from the U.S. Treasury Department in order to insure that the 
     sale will not benefit the Cuban government and that such 
     supplies will only be handled by independent and non-
     governmental agencies. Currently, only one U.S. company has 
     sought license to sell medical goods to Cuba. A study by the 
     American Association for World Health found that Cuban 
     hospitals are in dire need of basic medical supplies as a 
     result of U.S. policies. This is partially due to the fact 
     that the government-run health care system serves the 
     impoverished sector of the population, which cannot otherwise 
     purchase medicine, while other hospitals serving wealthier 
     Cubans and foreigners reap the benefits of this minor 
     relaxation of the embargo. The only relief for the average 
     Cuban citizen comes on the daily charter flight from Miami 
     that brings donations from individuals and aid from the few 
     Catholic humanitarian agencies authorized to operate on the 
     island.
       The U.S. embargo and the tempo with which it is being 
     administered is indisputably hurting the majority of Cubans. 
     Critics of the status quo maintain that lifting sanctions and 
     following a policy of constructive engagement would be of 
     great benefit to the general population. Several U.S. 
     legislators recently have traveled to Cuba, indicating a need 
     for more non-political relations with the island. ``Cuban can 
     benefit from the research of the National Institutes of 
     Health and we can benefit from the research (the Cubans) are 
     doing on meningitis-B,'' said Sen. Arlene Specter (R-PA) 
     following a recent visit to the island.
       Although the Warner-Dodd bill and HR 212 are meant to 
     transcend party lines, it will be difficult to advance such 
     creative thinking in either the House or the Senate due to 
     the opposition of such powerful and unregenerate Cuba-bashers 
     as Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) 
     and Florida's Cuban-American lobby.

     

                          ____________________