COMMENTARY

No real answers to the Cuban question

By Nicky Watson

Friday,  April 29, 2005

Anyone who thinks that the Cuban migrant situation is simple, hasn’t thought about it long enough. There are no clear-cut right answers to this problem and no real solutions while Castro remains in power, but there are choices, and the Cayman Government is faced with having to choose the least wrong. The factors that have to be considered are moral, political, financial and legal. 

The Cuban rafters leave everything they have and risk their lives in order to swap a politically repressive regime for a democratic one. The journey to freedom is, however, extremely hazardous. An estimated 4,000 migrants die at sea worldwide annually and Cuban boat-people are included in this statistic.

Unless we are entirely without compassion, the moral conundrum is whether Life or Freedom is more sacred, and who’s choice should it be – theirs or ours. If we help them to continue their journey, we are giving them the chance of a better life, but also allowing them to risk death and could, perhaps, be held morally, if not legally, accountable should this fate await them.

A consistent policy of repatriation might result in less people risking their lives, but this means we are sending human beings back to a system that we condemn. The excuse of the free world to repatriate to a society that is anything but free – a sort of moral loophole - is to label them ‘illegal migrants’, rather than ‘political refugees’. It is a linguistic ruse similar to Castro’s labeling of dissidents as ‘US-backed mercenaries’.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) recently released to the press does not contain any assurances from the Cuban Government that there will be no reprisals following repatriation. An earlier agreement between the governments of Cuba and the CI has not been made public, but is known to have been signed in May 1995 and authorized by the British Government. In this, Cuba apparently assured the Cayman Islands that no harm would come to migrants on their return. There is, however, no provision in either accord for monitoring the well-being of repatriated Cubans.

Though no proof has surfaced that migrants returned from the CI suffer physical abuse or incarceration – many are on their second or third, even fourth or fifth, attempts to escape - it would be naive to underestimate the power of a police state to administer punishment.

According to a Human Rights Watch document released in March this year, “The Cuban Government systematically denies its citizens basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, movement, and a fair trial. It restricts nearly all avenues of political dissent, and uses police warnings, surveillance, short term-detentions, house arrests, travel restrictions, criminal prosecutions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment as methods of enforcing political conformity.” 

Politically, the Cayman Government is caught between the big fish and a small piranha. The European Union is feeling its way into strengthening relations with Cuba, which might, at least in part, explain why the UK, which holds full responsibility for the external affairs of its overseas territories, and its representative in the Cayman Islands, have so far remained silent on the issue of Cuban migrants.

The US, on the other hand, has been tightening sanctions, a strategy to oust Fidel Castro from power that has failed for the past 40 years. While communism is anathema to the American Way, they too return the vast majority of Cuban migrants interdicted at sea. This figure, according to the US Coast Guard, is over 1,000 so far this year. A wet-foot/dry-foot policy, whereby Cubans who make it to US soil are generally allowed to stay, is blamed by some people for the constant flow of migrants from that country, including the ones that head here.

This policy was put into place following two mass migrations of Cubans to the US on flotillas of small boats in 1980 and 1994, and the realization that, far from being a triumph of democracy, they were a way for Castro to rid himself of potential dissidents, and, while he was at it, Cuba’s mentally ill and hardened criminals. 

When the CI assist the migrants to continue their journey, it could be argued that we are merely passing the problem on, initially to Honduras, a desperately poor country that has in the past stated its concern about the number of Cuban migrants it has to deal with. The migrants head on up through Central America and on to their final goal – the US. This factor is particularly problematic if, as seems likely, the flow of migrants includes a small criminal element.

Cayman must also juggle financial considerations. Incarcerating the Cubans and repatriating them is a very expensive business. On an individual basis, it is much cheaper to give them food, water and fuel, repair their boats, give them new engines if necessary, and send them on their way. The fear is, however, that rendering assistance encourages more arrivals, and if enough appear on our shores, as happened in 1994 with the arrival of 1,200 boat people, the financial burden on the CI would be very great. Though we should, perhaps, bear in mind that the vast majority of the 17 million refugees in the world are being taken care of in some of the poorest countries, it’s fair to say that this burden would be particularly great following Ivan.

The authorities are legally bound by the local domestic Immigration Law, which prohibits landing on these shores without the required documentation, and also Port Regulations, which stipulate various safety measures for vessels leaving territorial waters, including a working radio.

Migrants can apply for political asylum, though they are not advised of this by officials and are not provided with legal council or advice from an independent source. In order to qualify for asylum, they must prove they have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The process for this should be made clearer by the authorities, and independently monitored, something that could become one of the functions of the CI Human Rights Committee (HRC).

The HRC would also be a suitable body to research the relevance to this issue of international conventions and ensure that they are used, as they were intended, to protect the rights of individuals, especially the weak and the voiceless, and not simply referred to in press releases in order to justify Government action.

There is a growing tendency by some officials and certain members of the local media to refer to Cuban migrants as if they were common criminals. Yes, they have broken a law – the Immigration Law – but we have to acknowledge the desperation required to attempt such a dangerous journey. The biggest crime committed by the vast majority of Cuban migrants is to be born in the wrong place. While allowing for the very difficult position of policy makers and officials who carry out those policies, we should not allow political posturing to erode our basic humanity. Cuban migrants deserve our admiration for their courage and compassion for their predicament.

     Back...