Some Cuban groups in the exile celebrate that the Secretary of State Marco Rubio managed to nominate the candidacy of Rosa María Payá Acevedo to integrate the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) because they see in it an excellent opportunity to press the Cuban government even more and isolate it internationally.
However, they consider that her nomination responds more to a polítical strategy of the Trump’s administration than to a true contribution to the Cuban cause.
They look suspiciously the continuos interest of the US government to position her internationally as the universal leader of the entire cuban opposition from inside and outside the island.
The truth is that since her arrival to the United States in 2013, Mrs Payá Acevedo has been supported by ultraconservative políticians of Cuba origin, known for their hard line position against the island. Among others, she has been supported by Senator Marco Rubio, who in January 2015 took her as an official guest to the Speech of the State of the Union presented to Congress by President Obama.
Since then, he became his mentor and has been promoting her in international scenarios as representative of the entire Cuban diaspora , providing not only his political support but also access to public sources financing of US Federal agencies such as the USAID.
Thanks to those grans, she receives more than two million dollars annually from the American taxpayer.
Marco Rubio also facilitated her contacts with several presidents, former presidents and other important figures of the Latin American conservative right, in addition to the former general Secretary of the OAS. Luis Almagro with whom the promoter of the Cuba Decide project achieved a close relationship. She also received political and logistic support of this regional body for its international tours.
Her nomination has sound the alarms in regional civil society and also in several chancellor from Latin American and Caribbean countries that make up the Panamerican agency.
There are some concern that support the idea that she can not be considered as the ideal candidate to perform in that important position as Commissioner of the IACHR, due to the following reasons :
1. Her marked dependence and commitment to the US administration allows to see with total clarity that she will act in tune with Washington ‘s agenda and geopolitical interests in the region.
2. She does not have an “outstanding” career in favor of Human Rights, democracy and she is not an expert in Latin American policies. Her professional career has been focused only on promoting – without success – a “regime change” in Cuba and attacking the governments of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia following indications of the United States.
3. She is not a lawyer or has academic training, not even a curriculum that supports her career and commitment to the defense of Human Rights to occupy such an important position that other nominees have.
4.There is no public record that she has been pronounced in defense of Human Rights of indigenous peoples or the most vulnerable population in the region.
5. The fear that she will focus her actions with a selective and politicized approach in the situation of Human Rights in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, countries that are not members of the OAS, to the detriment of other real situations that face members countries, in which there is political persecution, states of instability caused by violence and crime, lack of freedom of speech, among others.
6. As a member of the ultraconservative sector of the Cuban American Community and follower of President Trump, she supports his maximum pressure strategy and unilateral coercive measures against several countries in the region.
She keeps a shameful silence regarding to the mass deportations of migrants to Latin American and Caribbean countries, and has not even pronounced against violence in anti-inmigrants reviews carried out in Los Angeles and in other US cities. This position shows her support for policies against to Human dignity, Human Rights, international law, and the principles included in Chapter of the OAS.
7.Her permanent hostility towards the Cuban government and her radical opposition to the normalization of relations between the two countries. There are numerous of her statements to support the American blockade and in favor of inclusion of Cuba in the list of countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism, an without inclusion that implies the imposition of severe additional economic santions that increase the suffering of the Cuban people.
8.Like his mentor, Mr Marco Rubio, using her usual hate speech, she constantly attacks Cuban Medical Brigades deployed in multiple countries to help the most vulnerable population or those who have suffered a natural catastrophes. Such position denies one of the fundamental Human Rights :the right to life.
9.She has exhibited a questionable and disrespectful pattern of public hostility towards diferents governments of OAS Member States. These statements include:
To qualify the Mexican former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of being a “despot”, accuse Colombian government respectfully to vice President France Márquez of supporting terrorism, affirm that Presidents Luis Ignacio Lula Da Silva and Gustavo Petro are “tentacles” of an octupus, whose head is in Cuba,and accuse the Chilean President Gabriel Boric of disseminating “Propaganda” because of exposing his concern for the suffering of the Cuban people caused by the American blockade.
10.Her praise to governments responsable for serious Human Rights violations, including the public support that provided to the interim government of Jeanine Añez in Bolivia (2019-2020), in which massacres were committed in Sacaba and Senkata that were documented and subsequently sentenced by the IACHR.
These ten reasons extracted from her public record, corroborate her contempt for Human Rights, international law, and the principles included in Chapter II of the OAS chapter, in addition to demonstrating their lack of impartiability, neutrality and commitment to the standards of universally recognized Human Rights.
Such reasons wouldn’t be enough to vote for her, and thus avoid seriously compromising the mission, legitimacy and impartial character of the IACHR.
