The Volokh Conspiracy - Vaclav Havel on the New EU Policy Opposing Human Rights Activists in Cuba.-

Incredibly, the European Union has come out against human rights activists in Cuba and in favor of Fidel Castro. Taking the lead from the Socialist government in Spain, the EU has publicly asked its members not to invite dissidents and human rights activists as guests to its embassies in Havana. This reminds me of the British government in late 1939 and very early 1940, when AFTER they had declared war on Germany, they [were still frightened of offending Germany]~~decided not to give Churchill a portfolio in the government because they were afraid of angering Hitler~~.

The Diplomad gives the context for the EU action and Vaclav Havel reminds the EU of the consequences of openly siding with evil, remembering the positions of the western countries in inviting (or often not inviting) dissidents to their embassies behind the Iron Curtain:

I cannot recall any occasion at that time when the West or any of its organizations (NATO, the European Community, etc.) issued some public appeal, recommendation or edict stating that some specific group of independently minded people — however defined — were not to be invited to diplomatic parties, celebrations or receptions.

But today this is happening. One of the strongest and most powerful democratic institutions in the world — the European Union — has no qualms in making a public promise to the Cuban dictatorship that it will re-institute diplomatic Apartheid. The EU's embassies in Havana will now craft their guest lists in accordance with the Cuban government's wishes. The shortsightedness of socialist Prime Minister José Zapatero of Spain has prevailed.

Try to imagine what will happen: At each European embassy, someone will be appointed to screen the list, name by name, and assess whether and to what extent the persons in question behave freely or speak out freely in public, to what extent they criticize the regime, or even whether they are former political prisoners. Lists will be shortened and deletions made, and this will frequently entail eliminating even good personal friends of the diplomats in charge of the screening, people whom they have given various forms of intellectual, political or material assistance. It will be even worse if the EU countries try to mask their screening activities by inviting only diplomats to embassy celebrations in Cuba.

I can hardly think of a better way for the EU to dishonor the noble ideals of freedom, equality and human rights that the Union espouses — indeed, principles that it reiterates in its constitutional agreement. To protect European corporations' profits from their Havana hotels, the Union will cease inviting open-minded people to EU embassies, and we will deduce who they are from the expression on the face of the dictator and his associates. It is hard to imagine a more shameful deal.

Cuba's dissidents will, of course, happily do without Western cocktail parties and polite conversation at receptions. This persecution will admittedly aggravate their difficult struggle, but they will naturally survive it. The question is whether the EU will survive it.

Today, the EU is dancing to Fidel Castro's tune. That means that tomorrow it could bid for contracts to build missile bases on the coast of the People's Republic of China. The following day it could allow its decisions on Chechnya to be dictated by Russian President Vladimir Putin's advisors. Then, for some unknown reason, it could make its assistance to Africa conditional on fraternal ties with the worst African dictators.

Where will it end? The release of Milosevic? Denying a visa to Russian human-rights activist Sergey Kovalyov? An apology to Saddam Hussein? The opening of peace talks with al Qaeda?

Coexistence with dictators

It is suicidal for the EU to draw on Europe's worst political traditions, the common denominator of which is the idea that evil must be appeased and that the best way to achieve peace is through indifference to the freedom of others.

Just the opposite is true: Such policies expose an indifference to one's own freedom and pave the way for war. After all, Europe is uniting to defend its freedom and values, not to sacrifice them to the ideal of harmonious coexistence with dictators and thus risk gradual infiltration of its soul by the anti-democratic mind-set.

I firmly believe that the new members of the EU will not forget their experience of totalitarianism and nonviolent opposition to evil, and that that experience will be reflected in how they behave in EU bodies. Indeed, this could be the best contribution that they can make to the common spiritual, moral and political foundations of a united Europe.

As Glenn Reynolds has been saying, Vaclav Havel for UN Secretary.

UPDATE: Two VC readers emailed to correct my error on Winston Churchill. Within days of war breaking out in 1939, Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty in the war cabinet. Yet the British government was indeed frightened of making Hitler angry even after war was declared. As William Manchester explains in Vol. 2 of his Churchill biography (p. 583), "It was still His Majesty's Government policy to avoid offending Germany." In January 1940, Leslie Hore-Belisha was forced to resign from the cabinet because his desire to see the war aggressively pursued might antagonize others (and perhaps also for his being Jewish). I may have conflated Hore-Belisha being forced out of the cabinet with Churchill's entry into it. Whatever the reason, I am sorry for the error.

	[Jim Lindgren, February 2, 2005 at 11:05am] Trackbacks Vaclav Havel on the New EU Policy Opposing Human Rights Activists in Cuba.- Incredibly, the European Union has come out against human rights activists in Cuba and in favor of Fidel Castro. Taking the lead from the Socialist government in Spain, the EU has publicly asked its members not to invite dissidents and human rights activists as guests to its embassies in Havana. This reminds me of the British government in late 1939 and very early 1940, when AFTER they had declared war on Germany, they [were still frightened of offending Germany]~~decided not to give Churchill a portfolio in the government because they were afraid of angering Hitler~~. The Diplomad gives the context for the EU action and Vaclav Havel reminds the EU of the consequences of openly siding with evil, remembering the positions of the western countries in inviting (or often not inviting) dissidents to their embassies behind the Iron Curtain: I cannot recall any occasion at that time when the West or any of its organizations (NATO, the European Community, etc.) issued some public appeal, recommendation or edict stating that some specific group of independently minded people — however defined — were not to be invited to diplomatic parties, celebrations or receptions. But today this is happening. One of the strongest and most powerful democratic institutions in the world — the European Union — has no qualms in making a public promise to the Cuban dictatorship that it will re-institute diplomatic Apartheid. The EU's embassies in Havana will now craft their guest lists in accordance with the Cuban government's wishes. The shortsightedness of socialist Prime Minister José Zapatero of Spain has prevailed. Try to imagine what will happen: At each European embassy, someone will be appointed to screen the list, name by name, and assess whether and to what extent the persons in question behave freely or speak out freely in public, to what extent they criticize the regime, or even whether they are former political prisoners. Lists will be shortened and deletions made, and this will frequently entail eliminating even good personal friends of the diplomats in charge of the screening, people whom they have given various forms of intellectual, political or material assistance. It will be even worse if the EU countries try to mask their screening activities by inviting only diplomats to embassy celebrations in Cuba. I can hardly think of a better way for the EU to dishonor the noble ideals of freedom, equality and human rights that the Union espouses — indeed, principles that it reiterates in its constitutional agreement. To protect European corporations' profits from their Havana hotels, the Union will cease inviting open-minded people to EU embassies, and we will deduce who they are from the expression on the face of the dictator and his associates. It is hard to imagine a more shameful deal. Cuba's dissidents will, of course, happily do without Western cocktail parties and polite conversation at receptions. This persecution will admittedly aggravate their difficult struggle, but they will naturally survive it. The question is whether the EU will survive it. Today, the EU is dancing to Fidel Castro's tune. That means that tomorrow it could bid for contracts to build missile bases on the coast of the People's Republic of China. The following day it could allow its decisions on Chechnya to be dictated by Russian President Vladimir Putin's advisors. Then, for some unknown reason, it could make its assistance to Africa conditional on fraternal ties with the worst African dictators. Where will it end? The release of Milosevic? Denying a visa to Russian human-rights activist Sergey Kovalyov? An apology to Saddam Hussein? The opening of peace talks with al Qaeda? Coexistence with dictators It is suicidal for the EU to draw on Europe's worst political traditions, the common denominator of which is the idea that evil must be appeased and that the best way to achieve peace is through indifference to the freedom of others. Just the opposite is true: Such policies expose an indifference to one's own freedom and pave the way for war. After all, Europe is uniting to defend its freedom and values, not to sacrifice them to the ideal of harmonious coexistence with dictators and thus risk gradual infiltration of its soul by the anti-democratic mind-set. I firmly believe that the new members of the EU will not forget their experience of totalitarianism and nonviolent opposition to evil, and that that experience will be reflected in how they behave in EU bodies. Indeed, this could be the best contribution that they can make to the common spiritual, moral and political foundations of a united Europe. As Glenn Reynolds has been saying, Vaclav Havel for UN Secretary. UPDATE: Two VC readers emailed to correct my error on Winston Churchill. Within days of war breaking out in 1939, Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty in the war cabinet. Yet the British government was indeed frightened of making Hitler angry even after war was declared. As William Manchester explains in Vol. 2 of his Churchill biography (p. 583), "It was still His Majesty's Government policy to avoid offending Germany." In January 1940, Leslie Hore-Belisha was forced to resign from the cabinet because his desire to see the war aggressively pursued might antagonize others (and perhaps also for his being Jewish). I may have conflated Hore-Belisha being forced out of the cabinet with Churchill's entry into it. Whatever the reason, I am sorry for the error.