Puente Democrático

This document seeks to study the UPR corresponding to the Cuban regime, which took place during the fourth working session of the UPR Working Group, in the period February 2nd-13th 2009, and its corresponding context. The focus is comparative between two regions of the world: Latin American governments and European governments.

Committed diplomacy is a problematic concept. Even though its exact definition is elusive, it is a practice that is backed by sufficient historical evidence to be recognized internationally. However, that does not subtract from the fact that the acts of diplomats committed to human rights beyond their call of duty are a scarce minority.

As a sort of contemporary slaves, we, the Cuban people in the middle of the 21st century, do not only depend on government permissions to leave or to return to our country, but we are also constantly confronted with the violation of our right to free movement, as the permissions are granted arbitrarily, they are delayed or refused, causing a deep grief within thousands of innocent families, who, paralyzed by their fear, are unable to claim for the respect of their basic rights.

Political transitions are highly uncertain events. For example, in 1988, the conventional wisdom was that communist rule in Eastern Europe was entrenched and would last into the indefinite future. The right question to ask about Cuba is not what will happen but rather what could happen. The latter question implies more than one possible future scenario. In this article, I construct and discuss alternative futures in Cuba after Fidel Castro passes away. The possibility of a transition to democracy in Cuba depends mainly on three causal factors.

Rogue states are perhaps new as a term in international politics, but they are not a novelty per se. They have existed throughout the different periods of history, generally displaying the same characteristics: The system of government is dictatorial and tend more towards totalitarianism than towards authoritarianism; their rhetoric and foreign policy are fervently anti-American; unlike other dictatorships, they are obsessed with international politics; they are constant practitioners of melodrama and expert users of propaganda.