Perez Roque Defends Condition of Imprisoned 'Mercenaries' in Cuba
Havana Cubavision in Spanish 29 Mar 04
Monday, March 29, 2004
Journal Code: 962 Language: ENGLISH Record Type: FULLTEXT
Document Type: Daily Report; News
Word Count: 14,927
Full transcription of Press Conference held by Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque on 26 March 04.
(FBIS Translated Text) Good day to all of the international press correspondents, also to the Cuban press correspondents. I have summoned you to broach issues of general interest and to express Cuba's views regarding certain issues that have been the objects of an intense international press campaign. However, before I address the issue that has brought us here, I must inform you that scarcely a few hours ago we received a document that is of general interest, and a news report that I will disclose before starting. It is a document written in English and it is the text of the proposed resolution that the United States has prepared to be presented by some other country within the next few days, at the Human Rights Committee. The text was delivered yesterday (25 March) afternoon at the State Department to a select group of diplomats from countries that are members of the Human Rights Committee; not all of the countries, only a select group. The United States, at last, has unveiled the text that it has been working on in great secrecy, presenting it to certain countries yesterday afternoon. The document has accidentally fallen into our hands and we are going to distribute copies to you.
Now, I want to ask any country which over the next few days might present the document, to say whether or not it is true that this text in English (he shows the document) is the text prepared at the State Department; whether or not it is true that yesterday afternoon it was presented at the State Department to a group of countries, and whether or not it is true that the text is an attempt to once again raise the Cuban issue at the Human Rights Committee. I have summoned you because I believe the time has come for our country to present its point of view, and especially to tell you the truth with the objectivity and seriousness that characterize Cuba. This is an issue that has been exploited over and over again, that has been insisted upon over and over again with exaggerations, inaccuracies, lies, and false and outrageous fabrications regarding the prison conditions and medical treatment provided to the 75 mercenaries who were sentenced for working for the US Government on the implementation of the Helms-Burton Law and the blockade against Cuba, and for receiving money and guidance from that country's government. I will reveal information which I hope will shed light on this matter and bring out the truth about an issue that has been used as part of a campaign of lies to slander Cuba.
Regarding the general situation of the Cuban penitentiary system, some days ago an interesting round table was held during which this issue was broadly debated. By the way -- to my surprise -- this event did not receive international coverage. I was surprised that over the past three days no press source mentioned what was discussed there. It is truly noteworthy that there was not the slightest interest in the explanation given by the Cuban penitentiary system's chief of medical services on how the system is organized, including such information as that in Cuba there is one doctor for every 200 inmates in the penitentiary system, a really impressive fact, quite similar to the system available to Cuba's entire population; or information on what is being done in the area of education, with regard to the penitentiary population's access to knowledge. I am truly surprised and astonished to see the lack of interest in this issue, because tons of words have been published over the past few months about Cuba's jails and there has not been a single reference to an issue that has raised so much interest in Cuba. The Cuban population was truly very interested; we have received a great deal of information from the general public and here at the Foreign Ministry, also, we have all commented, we all considered the information truly humane, of an impressively humanistic design. Nevertheless, not a single word has been said, it is as if it never happened. I hope that what I am going to present here today will happen and that the information I will disclose will be revealed.
First, I must inform you of the background of this entire process, which began after Cuba's response last year, a response that Cuba was forced to give because it had no other alternative. I chose to select the points of view of certain US Government representatives, members of that country's power circles, which I believe are more illustrative than whatever I could say about Cuba's experience of the past year and a half. Here we have, for example (an image is projected), the governor of Florida, the president's brother, Jeb Bush, speaking on 11 April 2003, almost a year ago: "Following the success of the war in Iraq, the United States must turn its attention to the neighborhood and exert pressure on the international community so that the Cuban regime will be unable to continue." Exert pressure, turn its attention to the neighborhood...
Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 4 May: "It is not appropriate to consider, at this time, the use of military force against Cuba." At this time...
We must remember that Mr. Powell went before the (UN) Security Council and presented the evidence -- quote, unquote -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons with the intention of launching them against other countries, also chemical and biological weapons.
Therefore, "at this time" is not a phrase to which we should attach too much credibility. That was on 4 May. On 10 October President Bush, in an electoral show (previous word published in English) staged at the White House with terrorist elements, members of Cuba's ultra-rightwing from Miami -- the worst of Miami's ultra-radical fauna -- said these words: "The Cuban regime will not change by its own initiative, but Cuba must change." Cuba must change, the president of the United States said on 10 October, by force; it must do so even if it is not willing to do so. The gentleman down there (in reference to an image he is displaying), who looks Latin American but is not -- he is the grandson of a Mexican but he is North American -- Roger Noriega, who is the Assistant Secretary for Hemispheric Affairs at the State Department and is primarily responsible for the State Department's policy toward Latin America, said in December 2003: "We must be prepared to take decisive and prompt action." He said this after declaring that the United States was considering ways to hasten Fidel's departure from Cuba's political scenario, which led to the public appeal made by comrade Fidel, which to date has not been answered, as to whether this meant a political assassination, as to whether or not the ban signed by President Gerald Ford during the mid-seventies, which prohibited US officials and special services from participating in the murder of foreign leaders, was still in effect. The ban came after the Church Commission scandal, which revealed several cases in which foreign leaders had been assassinated by US Special Services, including several thwarted plans against the very life of comrade Fidel. Fidel appealed to him to say whether or not there had been a meeting in which then candidate George Bush had told several Cuban mafia representatives not to worry, that he knew how to resolve the problem.
After making these statements, Mr. Noriega said that when the time comes they must be prepared to take decisive and prompt action; that the "United States wants to be certain that the regime's cronies will not take control of the Cuban Government's security apparatus," and he announced that the commission -- for the so-called Transition in Cuba -- which allegedly will prepare the plan to subvert and topple the revolution and turn Cuba into a protectorate once again, would be in charge of, among other things, fulfilling that goal. That was in December.
Mr. Melquiades Martinez, who at that time was the Commission's co-chairman and housing secretary, said in response to questions from the press that the Pentagon -- in other words, the US Armed Forces -- were not officially participating in the Commission at that time in December. However, he said, "Do not rule out the possibility that the Defense Department might, at some point, become involved in this effort."
Why would the US Armed Forces have to be involved in the so-called transition in Cuba? These are questions that have not yet been answered and the appeals made by Commander in Chief Fidel Castro have not yet been answered. Mr. Noriega, once again on 6 January said -- and he was lying -- "that the United States was observing the actions of Cuban leader Fidel Castro in his latest adventures."
"The United States has information about Cuba's involvement in the destabilization of governments," a lie that has already been answered also by the leader of the Cuban revolution, who clearly pointed out that governments have fallen because of the implementation of the savage neoliberal model, the extortion of Latin America's economies by the model imposed by the US Government and the International Monetary Fund. In what appeared to be a rhetoric competition, Secretary Powell said on 8 January: "Cuba has been trying to do everything possible to destabilize parts of the region." Cuba does not have to do that, because what the United States does is enough for Latin America to be an erupting volcano. Mrs. Condolezza Rice said that "Cuba has continued stirring up difficulties in other parts of the region."
President Bush said again on 12 January -- worried because he is dropping in the polls, he feels insecure, he fears that he might not be reelected, and he is looking on with concern as his rival's candidacy grows stronger -- that "the transition in Cuba must be rapid" -- that is true, that is what they want -- "and peaceful" -- that is a lie! That part is not real." This is the ultimate proof of their stupidity and lack of scruples. A House representative, a senator-elect, made the following comment: "What is required in Cuba is Castro's assassination;" he publicly called for the assassination of the president of a United Nations member country, a neighbor of the United States. "I believe that should be done" -- said this gentleman -- "an assassination," and he publicly defended the idea of assassinating a country's head of state. Look at what Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a US congressman, has said: "since Castro so likes the tourists who provide him with dollars" -- listen to the dinosauric, ultra-conservative, reactionary language, listen to it -- "then we should send spies among them."
I would like him to explain to me whether or not Cuba has reasons to adopt the measures it may deem appropriate, within its ethics and its legislation, to preserve the country and defend its people from those within who collaborate with the implementation of that policy that is being openly announced and paid for by top US political figures. Therefore, that is the issue that is in question here, that is the background of all of this, and the framework that cannot be ignored. Cuba is a country that is defending its right to self-determination, Cuba is a country that is defending its right to exist as an independent nation, and Cuba has the right to implement its laws. Cuba will not assassinate, Cuba will not make people disappear, Cuba will not assist in illegal assassinations, Cuba will not torture, Cuba will not implement violence, Cuba will not repress. However, Cuba will strictly implement its laws; it has done so because the UN Charter acknowledges this as its right, International Law acknowledges it, and Cuba has the right to defend itself and to mete out punishment, just as laws in the United States and the world over impart punishment to those who collaborate with a foreign power that is attacking their country. We must remember that Cuba was forced, at the time, to adopt measures in response to the openly provocative performance by the chief of the US Interests Section in Havana and, therefore, I am reiterating here today that the US Government and the chief of the US Interests Section in Havana will share the historical blame for the defensive measures that Cuba had to adopt to prevent individuals within the country from collaborating with the implementation of the Helms-Burton Law and the US subversion policy against Cuba.
As background information also, I must reiterate our information about the trials, because all of that has been discussed; I must reiterate -- because I believe it is an issue on which we must get to the truth -- the 12 characteristics of the trials against the 75 mercenaries.
First -- I repeat -- there was no violence or use of force, not even minimal force; their individual rights and their integrity were respected.
Second: The trials were summary, which means -- according to Cuban law -- that the deadlines to stage the trials were reduced, but there were no limitations on rights in any of the cases. Therefore, I reject the notion that the summary trials meant a loss of rights for the defendants. They meant, quite simply, a shortening of the deadlines without the loss of those rights, which -- in accordance with Cuban Law -- can be withheld by the president of the People's Supreme Tribunal.
Third: All of the defendants were previously informed of the charges brought against them and they had an opportunity, as do all defendants in Cuba, to argue the charges prior to the trial. It is false that they were informed of the charges during the trial. False, as they admitted during the trials.
Fourth: All of the defendants exercised their right to a defense attorney. There were 54 defense attorneys, 44 of them or 80 percent appointed by the defendants themselves or their relatives -- 44 of the 54 were appointed by the defendants themselves or their relatives -- 10 were assigned counsel. When a defendant does not appoint an attorney, he is assigned counsel in accordance with Cuban law.
Fifth: All of the defendants exercised their right to be heard in oral trials at ordinary civilian tribunals; tribunals that had been previously established in accordance with Cuban and International Law. Therefore, I can assert once again that a special ad hoc tribunal was not created to prosecute them, nor were special judges or emergency judges appointed. The judges were already employed as judges and had been appointed to already existing tribunals that functioned regularly prior to the trials. It is nothing like what awaits the detainees at the Guantanamo Naval Base, the prisoners at that concentration camp, where special military tribunals will be created with appointed judges. In other words, to fail to acknowledge this is to truly disregard the truth.
Sixth: There were no secret trials. The oral hearings for all of the trials were public and in the presence of the parties involved. There were 29 trials and all 29 met the requirements of being public, oral, and in the presence of the parties involved. Almost 3,000 people participated in those 29 trials, therefore there was an average of 100 individuals at each trial, which included the defendants' relatives. The assertion that the relatives did not attend the trials is false and that can be proven. In addition to the relatives, there were witnesses, experts, other citizens; therefore, I must once again deny reports that the trials were secret. That is false. It is true that certain foreign diplomats in Havana, a few who had asked to attend the trials, were not present; that is true. However, that was because nationals from their countries were not being prosecuted; all of the defendants were Cubans. The Vienna Convention on diplomatic and consular relations establishes the Diplomatic Corps' right to participate when a national from their country is standing trial. International Law does not establish that diplomats have a right to participate, and in this case the tribunals decided not to grant access to diplomats. That does not constitute a violation of International Law, and it does not imply that the trials were secret because eight or 10 ambassadors to Havana were not present. There is some distortion and exaggeration in all of this. The tribunal decided not to grant access to the press and they were not allowed in; the tribunal has the authority to do that. They considered the nature of the information that would be discussed, even the secret nature of some of the information pertaining to the country's national security. The tribunal has the power to do that. They also avoided an atmosphere of publicity that would interfere with the trial, with the impartiality and objectivity of the tribunal. This does not mean that the trials were secret; the relatives were there. I already said that almost 3,000 people participated in those trials.
Seventh: All of the defendants and their defense attorneys exercised the right to provide evidence and witnesses in their favor -- in favor of the defendants. They provided evidence and witnesses, in addition to those that were presented by the police investigators and by the Prosecutor's Office. The defendants themselves and their defense attorneys presented witnesses and additional evidence at the trials. The defense attorneys presented 28 witnesses, apart from the 28 presented by the Prosecutor's Office during the trial. The defense would say: "I now call so and so," and then question him. Of the 28 witnesses, the tribunals authorized 22, a vast majority, to participate and they participated and testified.
Eighth: All of the defense attorneys had previous access to the prosecutors' records. I must remind you at this point that the defense attorneys of the five Cuban heroes who are incarcerated in the United States, during the fixed trial staged in Miami did not have access to 80 percent of the information contributed by the Prosecutor's Office, because that information was declared secret; to this day they have been unable to see those records; in other words, they had to go to trial and file their appeals without seeing 80 percent of the evidence contributed by the Prosecutor's Office, because it was declared secret. Not only did they not have previous access, the defense lawyers in the case of the five have never had any access. That did not happen here. The defense attorneys had previous access to the records. The defendants have acknowledged this and some of them testified that they had met with their attorney and examined all of the information.
Ninth: All the defendants had the right, as provided by our Law and as each was advised during the trial—and most of them exercised it—to appeal the sentence; to appeal the sentence before a higher court than the court that convicted them, in this case, before the Supreme Tribunal. In fact, today there are a dozen cases in which proceedings have not ended and which are in the appeals stage. Therefore, they exercised this right provided for by Cuban law.
Tenth: All seizures and confiscations of goods were carried out under judicial order and after proving the illicit origin of the goods.
We are not talking about arbitrary actions by police members here, but rather about judicial orders (that were served) after their illicit origin was proven.
Let us recall that several defendants were found in the possession of sums such as one that was close to $16,000, hidden in a suit lining. It is not known why, because possession of dollars is not illegal in Cuba. It is not known why this money was not in a bank account. It was apparently hidden; it is not known why it was hidden.
Eleventh: The most scrupulous respect for the physical and moral integrity of each of the defendants was ensured in each stage of the proceedings, and several of them voluntarily acknowledged this during the trials.
Twelfth: There is absolutely no evidence—and if anyone has it, he should bring it forth—that coercion, pressure, threats, or blackmail were used to obtain the defendants' statements and confessions.
I believe it is good to repeat these 12 elements in order to present the truth amid this enormous campaign that repeats, and not precisely innocently, the arguments fabricated and orchestrated by Cuba's enemies. He who repeats the lie becomes an accomplice in its dissemination, and that has been happening in this case. Fine.
Now I will give new information on the trials that we did not have when we reported on them in this same location, insofar as the trials had ended only two days before. There is currently much more information on the matter.
I believe in the final analysis it is good, in order to see whether truth is understood, known, disseminated, and whether there is at least the ethics to acknowledge that Cuba has provided other information and that it should be made available to the public so it may make its own judgment, taking our arguments into account also, and not only the arguments of our accusers, not only the arguments of our aggressors.
Let us recall that the courts convicted 75 people, including 74 men and one woman. At the time of their arrests, five; that is, 7 percent, had jobs. Meanwhile, 70, or 93 percent, did not have jobs in Cuba. They did not work; they did not receive a salary for any job performed in Cuba.
Now, I would like someone to explain to me how they earned a living. How can someone live in Cuba without a salary, without working? And 70 of the 75 had no job, did not work, and their status was "unemployed." Supposing that one does not survive by robbing and that one does not commit crimes, where did they get the money to eat, clothe themselves, and cover other expenses, in the understanding that these were not family remittances either? They were remittances, but not family remittances; they were salaries paid by their employers.
Who gave them this money? The US Government did, and I believe this was amply proven here. The dispatches and press articles reporting on the matter barely talk about that. However, the proof, the checks, the invoices, and the payrolls that included the $3,000-a-month salaries were presented here.
This is not said. I do not know why this is not said; it is minimized, hidden. However, every day it is said that they were intellectuals; that the leading Cuban intellectuals were arrested. However, it is not said, and it is not recalled that starting in 1997 and until 15 January 2004—listen carefully; until 15 January 2004—the US Agency for International Aid (as heard) admitted that they alone—and they said they did not give the largest share—had assigned $26 million of the US budget to finance the creation of groups in Cuba, to manufacture a domestic opposition in Cuba.
The director of the Agency for International Aid said it: $26 million from 1997 to January 2004. The 2004 US budget includes approval of another $7 million; this is in the US law; it is on the US Government web page: $7 million to finance the creation of a domestic opposition in Cuba. That is the origin of the money, most of which stays in Miami, in the hands of middlemen, and a part comes here.
The thing is that the money that comes here has great value because these people, irrespective of their actions against the Revolution; irrespective of their work at the service of the US Government, do not have to pay for health; do not have to pay for their children's education; have all social rights and benefits, and therefore, $1,000 in Cuba is a millionaire's salary, as all those who are seated in this auditorium know.
That is where the money came from.
Therefore, first pieces of data: Seventy of the 75 did not have jobs; they were unemployed; most had not worked in several, four, five, six years. Why didn't they work? Because they had money. Where did they get this money? From the US Government.
Educational level: Of the 75, only 25, or 33 percent, are university graduates—25 of the 75! The rest have not graduated, have not set foot in the university, and have no university credits. Twenty-five, or 33 percent, are university graduates.
Journalists: Of the 25 university graduates, two graduated with degrees in journalism. Last year I said four, but I was wrong. Two studied journalism: Raul Rivero and Julio Cesar Galvez, who was a sportscaster. There is no other journalism graduate here; well, unless writing what is dictated to them by those who pay them and sending it to the Miami Herald or El Nuevo Heraldo makes them journalists; that's something else. However, two of the 25 have journalism degrees from a Cuban or foreign university.
Fourteen of the 75, or 19 percent, are 12th grade graduates, and did college preparatory work, and that is how far they went. They did not enter the university. Another 15; that is, 20 percent, studied to be mid-level technicians and at some point graduated from a mid-level technical school; one completed the 10th grade and dropped out; 18, or 24 percent of the total, completed the ninth grade; 18, or one quarter of the total, completed the ninth grade in Cuba, which as you know is the compulsory schooling for all the country's children; and one is a sixth-grade graduate. There is one on whom I do not have exact information.
When you report on the matter, I would like you to remember that 25 of the 75 are university graduates. When you talk about Cuban journalists and intellectuals, keep in mind that one-third of them are university graduates, and of that total, two have journalism degrees.
I remember a prominent member of the Spanish cabinet who said the creme de la creme of Cuban culture was in prison; impressive; and a woman who should never have crossed the Atlantic to come here, but well, that is an old story.
The correspondents who are seated here are familiar with our ethical standards and our attachment to truth; you know; I do not need to ask for a vote of credibility. You know that when we say something we say it because it is, and because we are right, and because we are armed with truth: Fifteen of the 75, or 20 percent of the total, have criminal records for common crimes. This was not known when we spoke about this matter here: three for rape or lascivious abuse of minors; one for aggravated robbery; four for economic crimes; one murder, two assaults; one burglary; two for disturbing the peace, and one on drug trafficking.
I understand it is not easy to be objective; I understand that there are interests behind the various media; I understand owners establish editorial lines; I understand there is the Inter-American Press Society, whose members are the oligarchic owners of this hemisphere's media; I understand things are not published because they are not appreciated over there at the home offices; I understand all that. However, I believe I have the right, as our people's representative, to invoke our right to have the truth known, to not have all these elements I said here be treated as if they had not happened.
I believe that is the least a besieged, blocked country can ask.
Regarding all this, we must remember that last year the UN Commission for Human Rights voted. The Costa Rican Government, at the request and mandate of the US Government, presented a text to condemn Cuba for conducting those trials, to condemn Cuba for deciding to take the mercenaries to court, and to demand that they be released. And the Commission for Human Rights voted.
The Costa Rican proposal to condemn Cuba was overwhelmingly defeated by 31 votes against and 15 votes in favor. Therefore, Cuba understands that the Commission for Human Rights supported Cuba's right to adopt those measures and refused to condemn those trials and to demand that they be released.
I would say that the vote in Geneva, plus the extraordinary impact of the presence of Comrade Fidel in Argentina where he was received in a truly impressive manner by the multitudes, by the Argentinean people; all that, plus the fact that Cuba's arguments began opening the way; the role of the intellectuals, honest voices in the world, of the best of the international intellectuality, of the Cuban intellectuality, who forestalled the media campaign, all that made that first campaign that questioned the legality of the trials lose strength.
Now there is a new campaign underway and this one has to do with the situation of the jails where the 75 mercenaries are being held and the medical attention they receive. Now then, is this the first campaign launched against Cuba involving counterrevolutionary prisoners serving jail sentences? No, no, no. This is not the first campaign. Cuba is accustomed to this.
As a sample I have decided to remind you of this that I will now show you. This is not the first time that Cuba faces a campaign like this one; no, no, no, no way. We know about this. We have been fighting media campaigns for the past 45 years. (Video is shown)
Do you know who is person is? Armando Valladares, policeman during the (Fulgencio) Batista dictatorship. He was arrested -- the newspapers for that period are available -- for planting bombs. These bombs had been put in cigar boxes and planted in public places throughout Havana. He was a member of a terrorist cell of which Carlos Alberto Montaner was also a member. They were condemned and Armando Valladares was sent to prison in Cuba. But see how the press presented the case: "An invalid poet has been imprisoned in Cuba;" "Armando Valldares' freedom is requested;" "Armando Valladares imprisoned in Cuba;" "Freedom for Valldares;" "Imprisoned in his wheelchair;" "A poet languishes in Cuban jails;" "From my wheelchair," the book of poems by Armando Valladares, third edition; "The heart with which I live." Look, a copy of an important international newspaper: "An invalid poet;" however, look at the images captured one day of the alleged invalid poet in his prison cell. See him here exercising.
(Video is shown)
Professor Alvarez Cambra -- As we were saying, the medical examiners, a group of high-ranking professors, well-known colleagues from the fields of neurology, surgery, orthopedics, and rehabilitation, reached the conclusion that the patient Armando Valladares was pretending, in other words, he was a fake. They reached the conclusion that Valladares wanted to get the best out of the image of being an invalid when the truth was that he never was an invalid. Are those the conclusion of this commission?
Felipe Perez Roque -- There you have the "invalid poet" running before he left Cuba. He was told: "Well, you have to give us the proof because Cuba has to prove that you are in effect, not an invalid."
(Video is shown)
Announcer -- In October 1982, Armando Valladares, former member of General Batista's repressive corps and well known terrorist, flew from Havana to Paris after being the center of an international campaign aimed more so at destroying the image of a country than at rigorously establishing the truth.
Felipe Perez Roque -- It happened like in the Bible: "Rise and walk." He did just like Lazarus did. The truth made him walk. (laughter) Now look (shows video), see him here, the "invalid poet, being greeted at the White House by (former US President Ronald) Reagan. After that he became head of the US delegation to the UN Commission for Human Rights just like Luis Zuniga Rey, the other terrorist who now has a seat in the United States and who was arrested in Cuba in a boat loaded with explosives and assault rifles. They claim he is a "fighter for human rights."