Iran:  As polls open today, Radio Farda, the BBC and other media outlets protest attempts to intimidate their Persian-language reporters.  RFE/RL live-blogs the day’s activity here, and click here for continuously updated coverage of election-related issues, developments and analysis.

Pakistan:  In response to “blasphemous” content on the Internet, officials have proposed that Google install a “proper filtration system” before lifting a nine-month ban on YouTube.

Azerbaijan:  Investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova will soon be sweeping the streets, and a bill criminalizing online defamation has become law.

RFE/RL is accepting applications for the Vaclav Havel Journalism Fellowship for aspiring reporters in the European broadcast region.  Please spread the word.

Burma’s transition process has been “a top-down affair,” The Economist notes.

“This, more than anything, distinguishes it from other recent upheavals such as the ‘people power’ revolutions of the Arab spring, the fall of communism in Europe and the toppling of Indonesia’s President Suharto,” it adds, noting that the country’s economic regression was a major factor in the army’s decision to liberalize:

Back in 1962 Myanmar, with its abundance of minerals, teak, rice, oil and gas, had been one of the wealthiest countries in the region, with an income per head of about $670, more than three times Indonesia’s and twice Thailand’s. By 2010 the IMF estimated that Myanmar had the lowest GDP per person in South-East Asia (see chart).  

The economic, domestic and strategic factors behind the transition all indicate that Burma can become a normal democratic state – if the military allows.

“This is where the limitations of the top-down process become obvious. The constitution of 2008 was drafted by the army and gave it a wholly undemocratic lock on power to ensure that it retained control of the transition,” it adds:

At every turn people have braced themselves for a backlash from army hardliners with the biggest institutional and economic stakes in the status quo, but it hasn’t come, at least not yet. Moreover, when reforms are debated in parliament and in the executive, the hardliners have tended to lose arguments, and votes. ….Even bigger changes could come out of a review of the constitution, considered unthinkable even a year ago but now proposed by the USDP itself. That could shake up the very foundations of the army’s political power—and might even allow Aung San Suu Kyi to become president.

RTWT

“If Thailand has a half-deified king, Burma has an ‘uncrowned queen’” in Aung San Suu Kyi, says a leading analyst.

“I am irresistibly reminded of the halcyon days after Václav Havel became president of Czechoslovakia in 1990,” writes Timothy Garton Ash:

There is the same mix of fairy-tale charm, public adulation at home and abroad, and a nagging murmur of private unease. The unease, in her case as in his, flows from several different sources—including the unhappiness of local intellectuals who barely get a look in. But mainly it is about the dissonance between the moral-literary-spiritual antipolitician of yesterday and the practical politician of tomorrow.

Much of that unease surrounds what some observers see as her politically-calculated rapprochement with the military and her muted response to recent violent attacks on the country’s Muslim minority.

“There are no votes to be gained on the issue—indeed, there are only votes to be lost—among the ethnic Burman majority,” Garton Ash writes for The New York Review of Books:

And she will need all the Burman votes she can get in the 2015 parliamentary elections, as well as forming alliances with ethnic minority parties and at least part of the military—whose parliamentary appointees will still have a reserved 25 percent of seats—if she is to get the more than 75 percent vote in the lower house needed to change the constitution, so that the new parliament can elect her president.

Leaders of the military-aligned USDP, including the powerful house speaker Shwe Mann, recently pledged to collaborate with Suu Kyi to amend the Constitution, but “do they risk crossing the invisible line” that protects the former dictatorship’s prerogatives? asks Kyaw Zwa Moe (left), editor (English Edition) of the Irrawaddy magazine:

No. Despite promised amendments, the military’s dominance in Burmese politics will not be washed away—it is part of the invisible line. Lawmakers will make some changes to the much criticized Constitution, and Thein Sein will continue taking liberties in navigating the reform process, but the important constitutional article that allows the military to appoint 25 percent of lawmakers in Parliament will not be amended. Thein Sein has already made that clear, recently telling the Washington Post that Burma’s military “will always have a special place” in government.

“In its scope and pace, Myanmar’s rapid opening after decades of harsh, secretive military rule has been likened to the end of South Africa’s apartheid era,” say analysts Gwen Robinson and Lionel Barber:

Parallels have been drawn between reformist leaders in both countries and, more controversially, between “the Lady”, as Ms Suu Kyi is known, and Nelson Mandela – to the chagrin of critics who accuse Ms Suu Kyi of sacrificing principles for political gain. But as with any society emerging from repressive rule, Myanmar’s transition is about far more than the liberation and rise of a pro-democracy leader.

Burma’s reform process is beginning to “bear fruit”, says the International Monetary Fund, but Suu Kyi’s relationship with President Thein Sein remains critical to maintaining momentum.

“Myanmar’s moment is now,” says U Soe Thane, minister in charge of economic affairs. “We have been planning for two years, we have changed many things. But this is our year of implementation, particularly for economic reforms,” he tells the Financial Times:

The government’s pace of reform has gone way beyond the tightly controlled transition mapped out in 2003 by Than Shwe, the military dictator, who handpicked Thein Sein as his successor. “Things are indeed moving fast,” said U Than Lwin, a leading banker and parliamentary adviser. “But we have been waiting decades for this moment. You cannot tell us to stop or slow down now”.

Crucial to the reform dynamic is the dual metamorphosis of Ms Suu Kyi and Thein Sein. “The Lady is a democracy icon, the president is the reform icon,” says Soe Thane. “These two still have good relations, they co-operate though not on a daily basis. We must take care of both for the sake of Myanmar,” he said.

There is some justification for Suu Kyi’s hard-headed approach, says Garton Ash, a celebrated participant-observer in east-Central Europe’s Velvet revolutions and post-Communist transitions.

“In my experience, the ex-dissidents who do best in post-dictatorship politics are those who say in effect, ‘OK, back then I was an intellectual, now I am a politician. One day I may go back to being an intellectual again, but for now I’ll do my best at playing a reasonably clean game of politics. For these are different games with different rules,’” he writes.

And yet Suu Kyi’s “own political nous has not been so evident as Havel’s in the opposition years, and the NLD lacks the expertise necessary to govern,” he fears.

Burma is not an Asian Czechoslovakia but more like an Asian Yugoslavia, an ethnic patchwork that can only be kept together by timely and far-reaching devolution of power. ….On the other hand, she seems clear-sighted about what she has to do. “I’ve never had illusions about politics,” she told one of her BBC interviewers. No Havelesque visions there; and that’s an advantage.

There is little doubt the NLD could sweep a free and fair election “but the biggest challenge will come in its capacity to govern”, Hervé Lemahieu, a Myanmar analyst, tells the FT:

Other critics note that the NLD is a collection of former activists and political prisoners with little economic expertise and no government experience. The push to promote younger members has caused serious internal rifts, which will sorely test Ms Suu Kyi’s famously imperious leadership style.

Beyond that, the greatest risk for the opposition is what Mr Lemahieu calls the NLD’s “one-woman strategy”: Ms Suu Kyi’s “continued centrality to the party’s political viability”. There are no apparent heirs to the NLD leadership and certainly none with her political pedigree and pulling power.

The NLD’s “pragmatic policies and narrow focus on law and order could damage its standing among the wider pro-democracy opposition and ethnic minority groups”, says Mr Lemahieu.

The Václav Havel Human Rights Prize is awarded each year by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in partnership with the Václav Havel Library and the Charta 77 Foundation to reward outstanding civil society action in the defence of human rights in Europe and beyond.

The Prize is awarded in memory of Václav Havel, playwright, opponent of totalitarianism, architect of the Velvet Revolution of 1989, President of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic and an enduring symbol of opposition to despotism. Nominations of any individual, non-governmental organisation or institution working to defend human rights are taken into consideration. The Prize consists of a sum of €60 000, a trophy and a diploma.

The Prize will be awarded at a ceremony which shall take place in Strasbourg on the Monday of the Autumn Session of the Parliamentary Assembly, usually in late September or early October. The name of the Prizewinner is announced by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly. The former Czech First Lady, Dagmar Havlova, is invited to honour the ceremony with her presence.

Who can be nominated?

Individuals or non-governmental institutions active in the defence of human rights can be nominated for the Prize.

Submission of nominations

Nominations for the Prize should be addressed to the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly and be signed by at least five sponsors, other than the nominee, on the special form to be found at the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize website. Nominations shall provide details of the nominee’s work in the defence of human rights and specify the reasons why the nominee’s work can be considered to be outstanding. Relevant supporting documents should be provided. Nominations should be submitted in either of the two official languages of the Council of Europe, English or French.

The Selection Panel

The Selection Panel of the Prize is composed of the President of the Assembly (or a person designated by him/her) and six independent persons (who cannot be current members of the Assembly) with recognised moral standing in the field of human rights. The Panel will examine the nominations, submit a shortlist of three nominees to the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly for information and, subsequently, designate the Prizewinner for the year in question. Three Panel members are appointed by the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly and three Panel members by the Václav Havel Library and the Charta 77 Foundation. The six independent experts are appointed for a two-year period, renewable twice. The Panel is chaired by the President of the Assembly or the person designated by him/her.

The Award Ceremony

The Prize will be awarded at a ceremony which shall take place in Strasbourg on the Monday of the Autumn Session of the Parliamentary Assembly, usually in late September or early October. The name of the Prizewinner is announced by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly. The former Czech First Lady, Dagmar Havlova, is invited to honour the ceremony with her presence.

Conference in honour of the Prizewinner

The Václav Havel Library will organise, at a later date, an international conference in Prague in honour of the Prizewinner.

Timetable for 2013:

30 June 2013: deadline for submission of nominees for the 2013 Prize.

August 2013: the Selection Panel will hold a first meeting in Prague and proceed to the selection of a shortlist of three nominees. The names of the shortlisted nominees will subsequently be made public by the President of the Assembly.

29 September 2013: a second meeting of the Panel will take place in Strasbourg to select the final Prizewinner from the shortlist of nominees.

30 September 2013: The Prize Award Ceremony will take place in Strasbourg in the Debating Chamber of the Parliamentary Assembly during its 2013 Autumn Session.

Further information:

Nomination form

Regulations

The Secretariat of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize: hrprize.pace@coe.int; +33 3 90 21 48 27.

The deadline of submission of nominees is set on the 30th of June. The nomination form can be found in the attachment.

For further information, visit the website, view the regulations, or contact The Secretariat of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize: hrprize.pace@coe.int; +33 3 90 21 48 27.

A group of former Iranian political prisoners is calling on the Obama administration not to sacrifice human rights for the sake of a nuclear deal with the regime in Tehran, but to reap the soft power benefits of “moral solidarity” with Iran’s people. 

“Even from a more traditional or realpolitik perspective,” the open letter to President Barack Obama states, the US “can more quickly achieve its nuclear agenda with the Islamic Republic by putting all issues on the table, dealing with the regime holistically and not letting its human rights violations go unchecked.” 

The letter calls on the administration “to make the plight of political prisoners held by the Islamic Republic of Iran a top priority of American policy,” invoking the Cold War precedent for dual-track diplomacy through which the US held nuclear negotiations with the Soviets while also pressing the case for dissidents like Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel.   

At a time when “the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions are monopolizing global discourse,” the signatories write, “it would greatly spur the cause of freedom — which is one and the same with American security interests in the region – for the United States to robustly advocate for the release of our brothers and sisters yearning to bring Iran into the fold of democratic nations.” 

Moral Solidarity

The experience of US support for Soviet-era dissidents demonstrates that “moral solidarity from the free world, particularly the United States, carries enormous soft power,” says the letter, which is signed by 26 young former detainees of diverse political views, most of whom suffered torture while imprisoned.  

“Yet we are bound by a personal history of unjust imprisonment while pursuing our dream of a democratic Iran where all can enjoy their universal human rights,” the letter states.   

Islamic Republic’s justice at work

Washington can build on the latent pro-American sentiment amongst Iranians by demonstrating that the US “is not merely interested in a hollow, unjust peace with the Islamic Republic but seeks rather a free and open Iranian society,” it continues, challenging the amoral calculus shared by regime apologists and advocates of cynical realpolitik.  “Despite how some may claim that human rights concerns are a distraction or an impediment to diplomatic progress on the nuclear file, a breakthrough on this front is more likely,” the dissidents insist, “when the Iranian regime sees America staying true to its most sacred values rather than abandoning them in hopes of piecemeal nuclear concessions that will always be difficult to trust.” 

Soviet-era dissidents like Havel and Natan Sharansky, and more recent political detainees like Aung San Suu Kyi have testified that international solidarity was a vital factor in their survival and ultimate triumph, countering their sense of isolation and maintaining their morale.  

“We know from personal experience that there is no feeling worse in prison than of being forgotten,” the Iranian dissidents write.  

“Despite some claims that solidarity from the United States can be seen as harmful ‘interference’, we know, in fact, how supportive words and actions from representatives of the American people can bring immeasurable hope to democratic dissidents, and can bring them sustenance and perseverance in the face of ill treatment, solitary confinement, torture and threats of execution,” the letter states, citing the fate of largely unknown detainees, such as dissident blogger Sattar Beheshti (right), who died after being tortured in prison.   

Such solidarity “does not cost any American blood or treasure,” the letter states, “but it will reap rewards for the American and Iranian people for generations to come.” 

The letter and signatories in full:  

April 18, 2013 

Open Letter to Congress and the President of the United States:  

We are a group of former Iranian political prisoners who write this letter to you with great respect for the United States and its historic efforts to support the democratic aspirations of oppressed peoples worldwide.   

We come from different parts of Iran, from different social backgrounds and political views.  Yet we are bound by a personal history of unjust imprisonment while pursuing our dream of a democratic Iran where all can enjoy their universal human rights.  We are all young, having been released recently.  Many of us have suffered torture and still suffer its effects.  All of our loved ones are haunted by our pain and trauma.    

Today, our closest friends and our most respected colleagues languish behind prison walls.  We cannot but think of them and their release.  Hence we reach out to you today, esteemed American legislators, in one voice and with one request:  

to make the plight of political prisoners held by the Islamic Republic of Iran a top priority of American policy. 

We know from personal experience that there is no feeling worse in prison than of being forgotten.  Despite some claims that solidarity from the United States can be seen as harmful “interference”, we know, in fact, how supportive words and actions from representatives of the American people can bring immeasurable hope to democratic dissidents, and can bring them sustenance and perseverance in the face of ill treatment, solitary confinement, torture and threats of execution.   We also know that Iranian political prisoners who have suffered the most torture and have even died as a result were largely unknown, such as our beloved Sattar Beheshti, who until recently blogged courageously for freedom.   

Particularly at this time, when the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions are monopolizing global discourse on our country, it would greatly spur the cause of freedom — which is one and the same with American security interests in the region – for the United States to robustly advocate for the release of our brothers and sisters yearning to bring Iran into the fold of democratic nations.    

Even from a more traditional or realpolitik perspective, America can better and more quickly achieve its nuclear agenda with the Islamic Republic by putting all issues on the table, dealing with the regime holistically and not letting its human rights violations go unchecked.  Despite how some may claim that human rights concerns are a distraction or an impediment to diplomatic progress on the nuclear file, a breakthrough on this front is more likely, in fact, when the Iranian regime sees America staying true to its most sacred values rather than abandoning them in hopes of piecemeal nuclear concessions that will always be difficult to trust.   

Soft Power

We know from the experience of American support for Soviet era dissidents such as Sakharov and Havel and for more contemporary figures such as Suu Kyi, that moral solidarity from the free world, particularly the United States, carries enormous soft power.   

We know that official US government demands for the release of Iranian political prisoners can: 

–build global recognition of courageous, principled political prisoners and their democratic aspirations;  

–hold regime officials accountable for their abuse of political prisoners; 

–prevent torture and ill treatment, and even hasten release;  

–shame the regime; 

–foster international solidarity to the cause of Iranian freedom; and 

–build faith among the Iranian people – and all others yearning to break free of tyrannical regimes — that the United States is not merely interested in a hollow, unjust peace with the Islamic Republic but seeks rather a free and open Iranian society that can be a partner to the free world in combatting terror and building true peace in the region. 

Highlighting violations throughout Iran (Interactive Map) Credit; ICHRI

With the presidential elections approaching in June, repression is intensifying.  Yet this is hardly a testament to the power and stability of the Iranian regime.  Never before, we feel, has the unelected, unaccountable, hugely corrupt Supreme Leader and his regime felt so vulnerable, both at home and abroad.   A deeply dissatisfied people, a crumbling economy and much international scrutiny over the nuclear program are causing all manner of regime fissures and insecurity.   Just as in American diplomacy with the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc during the Cold War, the crucial element which can make all the difference for democratic transition is unrelenting support from the United States for political prisoners.  American solidarity does not cost any American blood or treasure, but it will reap rewards for the American and Iranian people for generations to come.

We ask this of you with enormous hope and faith in a free Iran that will be a friend to the United States and to peace and security in the Middle East region.    

Sincerely, 

Ms. Roya Araghi, former prisoner of conscience and presently deputy to Mr. Ayatollah Hossein Kazemeyni Boroujerdi (right), who is an imprisoned dissident cleric and advocate for the separation of religion and state. 

Mr. Abdolreza Ahmadi 

Mr. Mehrdad Aslani 

Mr. Ahmad Batebi 

Ms. Fariba Davoodi Mohajer 

Mr. Amir Hossein Etemadi Bozorg

Mr. Saeed Derakhshandi 

Mr. Saeed Ghasseminejad

Mr. Abolfazl (Pooya) Jahandar 

Ms. Paris Keynezhad, spokesperson for the El Yasin Community and representative of over a dozen current and former prisoners of conscience from this spiritual community who live in Iran. 

Mr. Alireza Kiani 

Mr. Behzad Mehrani 

Ms. Maryam Moazen Zadeh 

Mr. Reza Mobayen 

Mr. Mohammad Mostafaie 

Mr. Alireza Mousavi 

Mr. Ali Nazari 

Mr. Nima Rashedan 

Mr. Arman Rezakhani 

Mr. Siavash Safavi

Mr. Kianoosh Sanjari  

Mr. Koroush Sehati 

Mr. Salman Sima 

Ms. Delbar Tavakoli 

Mr. Hassan Zarezadeh Ardeshir 

Mr. Syrus Zarezadeh Ardeshir 

Credit: NDI

The Obama administration should back calls for an investigation into the death of a leading Cuban dissident, says the Washington Post:

Nelson Mandela was locked up on Robben Island. Andrei Sakharov was exiled to Gorky. Vaclav Havel was thrown into a Prague jail cell. Aung San Suu Kyi was repeatedly placed under house arrest. All of these courageous, dissident voices were muffled at some time by authoritarian regimes, but in the end, they found their way back to freedom. Oswaldo Payá [left] of Cuba never got that chance.

His daughter, Rosa Maria Payá, this week presented a petition signed by 46 activists and political leaders from around the world to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, calling for an international and independent inquiry into Payá’s death.

“Mounting and credible allegations that the Cuban government may have been complicit in the murder of its most prominent critic, a leading figure in the human rights world, cannot go ignored by the international community,” said the appeal, organized by the UN Watch human rights NGO.

“After Mr. Payá’s death, the White House paid tribute to him, saying, ‘We continue to be inspired by Payá’s vision and dedication to a better future for Cuba, and believe that his example and moral leadership will endure,’” the Post notes:

When pro-democracy activists were arrested and beaten at his funeral, the White House again spoke up. But in the past week, since Mr. Carromero’s interview was published, the administration has not uttered a word. What if it had been Sakharov, Aung San Suu Kyi, Mandela or Havel who was run off the road? Would it have said nothing?

“At this critical juncture, with new information at hand, the United States ought not to be complicit in silence about who killed Oswaldo Payá,” the Post concludes.

In 2002, Payá initiated the Varela Project, a mass petition calling on Cuba’s Communist authorities to guarantee constitutional rights. He was killed alongside fellow activist Harold Cepero in a car crash in July. The car’s driver, Spanish rights advocate Ángel Carromero, was imprisoned on charges of vehicular homicide, but released to Spain in December. He told the Washington Post last week that the car was hit by a vehicle with official license plates.

Shortly after the crash, Payá’s widow, Ofelia Acevedo, said that a survivor of the crash had sent text messages from his cell phone reporting that the car crashed after it was repeatedly rammed by another vehicle. 

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo yesterday told Berta Soller, the leader of the dissident Ladies in White, that the European Union will continue its tough “common position” toward the Communist regime:

Garcia-Margallo offered Spain’s help in a “transition” to democracy in Cuba, drawing on the Iberian nation’s return to representative government after the 1975 death of dictator Francisco Franco, the dissident said.

The latest revelations regarding Payá’s death appear to confirm suspicions of foul play voiced at the time of the crash by his fellow dissidents and democracy advocates.

The regime targeted Payá because he “crossed a red line in challenging the government’s relations with the church, which had become a pillar of the government’s strategy of survival…. at a time when the regime, emboldened by the cardinal’s silence at the mass arrests during the pope’s visit to Cuba in March, was not about to tolerate criticism,” said the National Endowment for Democracy’s Carl Gershman:

Visiting Bayamo with foreigners — the two survivors of the crash were fellow Catholics from Spain and Sweden — crossed another red line. The city is the center of the cholera outbreak in the eastern part of Cuba, and for the regime, the disease is not just a medical problem but also an economic and political threat. ….The spread of the disease also challenges Cuba’s self-image as a medical superpower and could arouse anger in citizens who believe that sending Cuban doctors to Venezuela and other countries detracts from the care they receive at home. The fact that Bayamo has experienced labor unrest the past two years and was a rebel stronghold during Cuba’s war of independence against Spain and the uprising against Batista further arouses the regime’s anxiety.

“He had said they were going to kill him. And this was the third accident he had this year,” charged Martha Beatriz Roque, a well-known dissident economist.

The Communist regime had a further incentive to remove Paya, said analysts.

“What really distinguished him was that unlike almost all the others, he engaged in retail politics,” said Philip Peters, a Cuba expert with the Lexington Institute. “His Varela Project stands out as the only initiative of its time that enlisted citizen participation on a large scale. No one else did that, before or since.”

The National Endowment for Democracy and the Embassy of Lithuania invite you to the presentation of the Democracy Service Medal to Vytautas Landsbergis, preceded by a screening of the film The Other Dream Team. 

Vytautas Landsbergis, along with Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, is among the heroes of the revolutions of 1989 to 1991 that brought democracy to Eastern Europe. As a founder and leader of the democratic movement Sajudis, he spearheaded Lithuania’s struggle to regain its freedom after more than 40 years of Soviet occupation. After being elected Chairman of the Supreme Council, he oversaw the drafting of Lithuania’s declaration of independence on March 11, 1990. This process initiated the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Lithuania served as an inspiration for democracy movements across the USSR.

For more than two decades, Professor Landsbergis has been a pioneer, leader and guiding force of center-right political parties and parliamentary politics in Lithuania. Since 2004, he has served Lithuania as a member of the European Parliament. From his earliest days in politics, he has also opposed authoritarianism and supported freedom fighters around the globe. Prof. Landsbergis is a founding member of the Parliamentary Forum for Democracy, an international network of parliamentarians who support democracy and human rights. It is for these accomplishments and contributions to democracy that NED will honor Vytautas Landsbergis with its Democracy Service Medal.

Prior to the medal presentation, and at a time when many of us are looking forward to college basketball’s “March Madness,” there will be a special screening of The Other Dream Team, the critically acclaimed documentary about Lithuania’s struggle for independence and the triumph of their 1992 Olympic Basketball team against the former Soviet Union. This film is about more than the sport of basketball—it is about a team that emerged as a symbol of democracy, unity, and pride in a country once shackled by Communism.

RSVP HERE

National Endowment for Democracy

Wednesday, March 13, 2013 from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM

Washington, DC

Cuba’s Communist authorities denied Yoani Sánchez (right) the right to travel twenty times, but she has now arrived in the Czech Republic, Radio Praha’s Jan Richter reports:

Sánchez, who said she only knew Prague from the books of Milan Kundera, will attend the One World Festival of human rights documentaries and appear at a concert in support of Cuban artists, organized by the humanitarian Czech NGO People in Need,* which provides support for Cuban journalists and opposition activists.

But the dissident blogger warned that the partial relaxation of travel curbs did not signify a real shift in government policy.

“I don’t think that this is a sign of significant political change,” she said. “Instead, the government is trying to create the impression that Cuba is progressing and improving, that the country has begun to open up. The reality is that repression continues on the island [see videos below], and that human-rights and opposition activists continue to be violently oppressed.”

“I do hope that there will be change. But I don’t believe it could come from the government. Rather, the civic society, which has developed and acquired new tools such as technology, can push for a process of democratisation. That’s my hope.”

Cuban dissidents are equally skeptical that Raul Castro’s announcement that he will step down in 2018 will do more than re-allocate authority within the ruling elite. Castro’s appointed “dauphin,” Vice-president Miguel Diaz-Canel, would be the first leader not to be a veteran of the Cuban revolution – assuming he ever takes office.

“It’s going to be a challenge,” said analyst Brian Latell. “The record of the Cuban revolution is littered with the names of people who were thought to be No. 3 or 2 and all of them fell by the wayside, going back to Che Guevara.”

Diaz-Canel’s elevation is a sign of continuity rather than change, observers suggest.

“It confirms the gradualism of Raúl’s approach,” said Geoff Thale, program director for the Washington Office on Latin America, referring to Castro’s modest economic reforms. “I don’t think there’s any evidence that he is someone looking to bring rapid or dramatic change to Cuba’s political or economic system,” he tells the New York Times:

Raúl Castro has mostly praised [Diaz-Canel] for his hard work, and his “ideological firmness” — more than enough to attract the ire of anti-Castro Cuban-Americans who have already criticized him for being a Castro protégé. American officials have expressed skepticism, noting that the top-down selection of a new leader does not amount to democracy.

Mr. Díaz-Canel may in fact find himself on a lonely perch if he manages to seize the top job. He will be surrounded by pent-up demands for more significant change, but without the heft attributed to the Castros and the revolutionaries who fought with them.

“He will have to watch his back,” Mr. Latell said.

The ruling Communist party’s determination to retain its political monopoly explains why external actors need to keep up the pressure, and post-Communist states like the Czech Republic have a special role and responsibility, said Sánchez.

“The position of the Czech government towards the opposition – one of solidarity, collaboration and support, is very important at this moment,” she said. “It seems that for many, Cuban affairs are beginning to lose importance because many people believe that Cuba is changing. Maintaining the pressure is crucial.”

Sánchez arrived in Prague after a visit to Brazil, where she received a hostile reception from Leftist demonstrators, reportedly orchestrated by the Cuban regime, who on one occasion, “burst into an event at a bookstore, forcing organizers to cancel it,” the Wall Street Journal reports:

For many Brazilians, the headline-making attacks are a national embarrassment. In one dramatic scene in Bahia this week, the 71-year-old Brazilian Sen. Eduardo Suplicy put himself between an angry mob and Ms. Sánchez to protect her. “Have the courage to listen!” he shouted. They didn’t, and the event was canceled for safety reasons.

“Why are we talking so much about Cuba and Yoani Sánchez? Because this woman is living proof of the Castros’ unfulfilled promise of liberty, a promise that seduced and involved, from the start, some of the greatest intellects of our continent,” wrote O Estado de S. Paulo columnist Eugênio Bucci.

Sánchez noted that the demonstrators were exercising the rights to protests and free speech denied to Cuba’s people.

“I am a self-taught democrat. I believe in the plurality of ideas. But when it comes to verbal or physical violence, that’s no longer plurality, that’s fanaticism,” she said, explaining Latin America’s “illusion” about Cuba.

“There are young people attracted to the idea of revolution. And there are not so young people who can’t accept that the ideas they believed in are defunct, or for whom it is too late in life to say ‘I was wrong.’ ”

Brazil’s ruling Workers’ Party has remained supportive of Cuba’s Communist dictatorship. Pro-democracy activists criticized then-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva when he suggested that hunger-striking dissidents were common criminals. Labor unionists have also highlighted Lula’s hypocrisy, recalling the international solidarity he received while struggling for the same democratic rights as a young union militant.

Brazil’s stance could backfire when Cuba becomes a democracy, said Sánchez.

“There’s been a lack of toughness or frankness [from Brazil] when it comes to talking about human rights on the island. I would recommend a more energetic position, because the people don’t forget,” she said.

Capitol Hill Cubans add: Last week, we posted a video of Cuban pro-democracy activists Rosario Morales la Rosa and Melkis Faure Echevarria courageously leading a protest in Havana’s Central Park, calling for an end to for the Castro regime’s repression. They were arrested pursuant to the protest.

A new video has surfaced showing the commotion caused by Castro’s police — simply due to a peaceful protest by two women in a park — and foreign tourists being arrested for unwittingly taking pictures. Ironically, only the images captured by a Cuban pro-democracy activist with a hidden camera saw the light of day.

The second video (above) shows 30 Ladies in White protesting at the bus terminal known as “La Coubre,” where they were purposefully stranded at 2 a.m. They were all thereafter violently beaten and arrested.

*People in Need is a grantee of the National Endowment for Democracy. 

Intigam Aliyev, a leading human rights lawyer from Azerbaijan, has been awarded the prestigious Homo Homini human rights award for 2012. The award, given by People in Need, the Czech Republic’s largest non-governmental organization, is given in recognition of Aliyev‘s personal courage and exceptional committment to defending persecuted individuals.

Aliyev (right) was one of several leading activists arrested in a recent police crackdown in Baku. He will receive the award at the opening ceremony of the One World film festival in Prague on March 4, 2013. Thecelebrated Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez will also speak at the event.  

Aliyev has presented hundreds of legal cases to the European Court of Human Rights; around 40 cases are currently awaiting court decision. He has succeeded in a number of cases concerning voting rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial. He has also lectured at universities, published hundreds of articles and provided direct legal assistance to people persecuted for participation in peaceful protests, for uncovering corruption and publishing voices critical to the regime. 

Aliyev is an exceptionally courageous person and consistent human rights defender. The award also aims to draw more attention to the repressions taking place in Azerbaijan, which especially in Europe is largely ignored“, says Marek Svoboda, director of People in Need´s Center for Democracy and Human Rights.  

Only weeks ago, dozens of peaceful protesters including Mr. Aliyev and other prominent defenders were arrested, two days after the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in Azerbaijan and called upon the authorities to stop attacks and harassment against  human rights defenders. 

Founded in 1992 and having worked in over 40 countries around the world, People in Need is predominantly focused on humanitarian, development and human rights support. It is also the organizer of the One World documentary film festival that has grown to be the largest showcase of human rights documentaries in the world. Among its many guests this year will also be another prominent Azeri defender Emin Milli and the Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez.  

First awarded in 1994, the Homo Homini will be given during the opening ceremony of the One World festival in Prague on March 4, 2013. Until his passing away, the award has traditionally been handed over by former Czech President Václav Havel. Among its past recipients are the underground network of Syrian medics „Doctors Coordinate of Damascus“, the jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, unjustly imprisoned defender Azimjan Askarov from Kyrgyzstan or Iranian student leaders Majid Tavakoli and Abdullah Momeni.

For more information please contact:  Marek Svoboda marek.svoboda@peopleinneed.cz

A Chinese democracy advocate who hoped to meet Aung San Suu Kyi has been barred from flying to Burma.

Wang Zhongxia holds up a t-shirt he made to promote Charter ’08

“We chose to travel to Burma because we wanted to see Aung San Suu Kyi,” Wang Zhongxia (left) told The Irrawaddy.“I was told that because of an order by the Beijing Public Security Department, I am not allowed to leave the country,” he said. “They refused to show me anything in writing.”

Five years ago, Wang was a signatory of the Charter ’08, a manifesto initiated by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo and signed by hundreds of intellectuals, which called for democracy, constitutional rule and the respect for human rights in China. Wang produced t-shirts promoting the Charter in Beijing. ….

In 2010, Wang caused a stir when he threw 60 half-yuan banknotes at a Yunnan provincial propaganda official during a public talk in Beijing. The half-yuan notes are a reference to Internet commentators in China who post comments favorable to the government online and get paid half a yuan (US $0.08) for each post by propaganda organs.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Wang said. “Chinese can travel to the United States, but (I) can’t travel to Burma.”

Irrawaddy is a grantee of the National Endowment for Democracy, the Washington-based democracy assistance group.