A response in connection with the Op-Ed article “Reinforcing the criticism of torture,” by Salil Shetty, Secretary-General, Amnesty International, and published on May 13, 2011.
It has come as a great surprise to me that your prestigious newspaper, generally covering news with objectivity, has allowed the Op-Ed article “Reinforcing the criticism of torture” from the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Mr. Salil Shetty, to appear.
As the Ambassador of Cuba, one the countries which has done more for the development of human rights in the last 50 years, I cannot but feel outraged by the casual classification — by Mr. Shetty, following the ideological and political bias of Western nations, particularly the United States, which he considers to be “a big champion of human rights” — where Cuba has been included as a part of a group of repressive governments around the world.
I challenge Mr. Shetty to indicate any form of torture to any Cuban citizen or any journalist who has been beaten or killed, as it happens in many countries around the world. Why is there only the reference to Third World countries? Maybe the answer lies in his own words: “The human rights situation and civil and political rights in the developed world is better.” Can that be true or is it the result of the origin of Amnesty's membership that he himself accepts is “… quite reliant on Western power base…” with their values and agendas?
It is incredible that Mr. Shetty does not dare to include the U.S. government or that of Israel as repressive governments despite Amnesty's detailed reports of the violations of human rights by both countries — many pages more and graver violations than whatever has been written about Cuba. Indeed, there is no need for these reports: hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed by the U.S. army and its NATO allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, now in Libya, by Israel in occupied Palestine and other Arab nations.
When he includes Cuba he does not have an excuse, as he was the Director of the U.N. Millennium Goals and he knows quite well what Cuba has achieved in providing human rights to its people, the right to education, to health, to gender equality and many others. He does not mention that the best country in the developing world to be a mother is Cuba, according to “Save the Children” organisation, or that Cuba has 100 per cent literacy or an infant mortality rate of 4.5 per 10,000 alive, the lowest in the Western hemisphere.
How is it that the actions of repressive police in Europe and in the U.S., the violent pogroms and anti-immigrant actions in the U.S. and Europe cannot be seen and judged with the same standard by Amnesty International?
How can anyone believe Amnesty International is a trustworthy organisation when it condemns the attacks of Qadhafi to Misrat and does not say a word against the NATO attacks on civilians, including children?
His rhetoric of defence of human rights lacks credibility, and especially so the article of reference which tries to criticise the acceptability of torture as a way to obtain a confession, but does not dare to condemn the nations that promote and condone the use of torture, particularly the U.S. government.
I would appreciate it if this reply is published in a prominent manner in order to respect my right to a reply which I am sure your prestigious newspaper will recognise.
Miguel Angel Ramirez
Cuban Ambassador
New Delhi
May 19, 2011
