Cuba, the corporate media and the suicide of Orlando Zapata Tamayo

By Salim Lamrani

March 4, 2010 -- On February 23, 2010, Cuban inmate Orlando Zapata Tamayo died after 83 days on hunger strike. He was 42. This is the first such incident in Cuba since inmate Pedro Luis Boitel died in 1972 under similar conditions. The corporate media put the tragic incident on front pages and emphasised the plight of Cuban prisoners.[1]

Zapata's dramatic exit sparked a justifiable global uproar. The Cuban prisoner's case undeniably fosters sympathy and a sense of solidarity with a person who expressed his despair and malaise in prison, carrying out his hunger strike to the ultimate consequence. The heartfelt emotion aroused by his case is quite respectable. In contrast, the manipulation of Tamayo's death and of the grief of his family and friends by the corporate media for political purposes violates the basic principles of journalistic ethics.

Since 2004, Amnesty International (AI) has considered Tamayo among Cuba’s 55 "prisoner of conscience". In addition, it has noted that Zapata’s hunger strike was launched not only to protest his conditions of detention, but also to demand a television, a personal kitchen and a cell phone to call his family.[2] Although not the devil incarnate, Zapata was not a model prisoner. According to Cuban authorities, he was guilty of several acts of violence during his incarceration, especially against guards, leading to his conviction being increased to 25 years.[3]

Curiously, AI has never mentioned the alleged political activities that landed Zapata in prison. The reason is relatively simple: Zapata never carried out any anti-government activities prior to incarceration. Instead, the organisation recognises that he was convicted in May 2004 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for "contempt, public disorder and resistance".[4] This sentence is relatively minor compared to the sentences, ranging up to 28 years, that were handed down to the 75 opposition figures convicted in March 2003 of "having received funds or materials from the US government to carry out activities that the authorities consider subversive and damaging to Cuba", as recognised by AI is a serious crime in Cuba and any country in the world. Here AI cannot escape an obvious contradiction: on the one hand these people qualify as "prisoners of conscience" and on the other it admits they committed the serious crime of accepting "money or materials from the US government".

Unlike the 75, the Cuban government has never accused Zapata of accepting funds from a foreign power and has always considered him a common convict. Zapata had a serious criminal record. Since June 1990, he had been arrested and convicted several times for "disturbing the peace, two counts of fraud, public exhibitionism, injury and possession of non-firearm weapons". In 2000, he fractured the skull of Leonardo Simon using a machete. His criminal record does not involve any political actions. It was only after his imprisonment that his mother, Reyna Luisa Tamayo, approached government opposition groups, but she has never been bothered by the authorities.[6]

Double standards?

The United States and the European Union declared their consternation and demanded the "release of political prisoners". "We are deeply distressed by his death", said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who denounced the oppression of political prisoners in Cuba. Brussels followed suit and demanded the "unconditional release of all political prisoners". France’s foreign ministry spokesperson Bernard Valero announced that "following his situation closely, we called for his release along with the other detainees whose health seemed particularly worrying".[7]

Cuba's President Raúl Castro "regretted" the death and responded to the uproar from Washington and Brussels by stating "in half a century, we have not murdered anyone here, no one has been tortured, and there have been no extrajudicial executions. Well, here in Cuba there have been people tortured, but at the Guantanamo Naval Base", he said in reference to the torture centre under US administration. "They say they want to hold talks with us and we are ready to discuss with the US government all issues they want. I repeated it three times in parliament... We will not accept discussions unless both parties enjoy absolute equality. They can investigate or ask any questions in Cuba, but we have the right to ask about all the problems of the United States."[8]

During a visit to Cuba, Brazil's President Lula da Silva also declared his sympathy, but wished to highlight the double standards of the corporate media of Washington and Brussels, recalling a sad reality, "I know about virtually all the hunger strikes that have taken place over the past 25 years in the world and many people have died on hunger strikes in many countries".[9] The media ignored the vast majority of those tragic cases and absolutely none received the media coverage that has been afforded this Cuban inmate.

By comparison, in France between January 1, 2010, and February 24, 2010, there were 22 suicides in prisons, including a 16-year-old boy. In 2009 there were 122 suicides in French prisons and 115 in 2008. State secretary of justice Jean-Marie Bockel declared his impotence in these situations: "When someone decides to commit suicide and is determined to do, whether they are free or in prison, ... there is nothing you can do about it." The families of those victims were not entitled to the same media treatment as Zapata, nor even an official public statement from the French government.[10]


We must put the Zapata’s case into perspective by looking at two much more serious situations deliberately ignored by the corporate media that clearly illustrate the politicisation and manipulation of this ordinary incident that would pass unnoticed in most countries, except Cuba.

Since the coup in Honduras took place and the military dictatorship was established on June 27, 2009, led first by Roberto Micheletti and then, since January 28, 2010, by Porfirio Lobo, there have been more than a hundred murders and countless cases of disappearances, torture and violence. The abuses occur daily, but are carefully omitted from the coverage of the corporate media. Thus, when Claudia Larissa Brizuela, a member of a group opposed to the coup, the National Resistance Front (FNRP), was murdered on February 24, 2010, just one day after the death of Zapata, there was not a single word about it in the corporate press.[11]

A similar case further illustrates the duplicity of the corporate media. In December 2009 in La Macarena, Colombia, the largest mass grave in the history of Latin America was discovered, with no fewer than 2000 bodies. According to testimonies collected by British MEPs on the ground in La Macarena, these were the bodies of union and peasant leaders killed by the paramilitaries and the Colombian army's special forces.

Jairo Ramirez, lawyer and secretary of the Standing Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Colombia, described the grisly scene: "What we saw was frightening. Countless corpses and hundreds of white wooden plaques inscribed with NN and with dates ranging from 2005 to the present. The army commander told us they were the bodies of guerrillas killed in combat, but the people of the region told us of the many community leaders, farmers and community advocates who have disappeared without a trace." Despite the many testimonies and the presence of the MEPs, despite a visit by a Spanish parliamentary delegation to investigate, no corporate media has given even a little attention to this news.[12]

The suicide of Orlando Zapata Tamayo is a tragedy and his mother’s pain must be respected. But there are unscrupulous people -- the corporate media, Washington and the European Union -- who care little about his death, just as they care little for the Hondurans and Colombians killed every day. Zapata is useful to them only in the media war against the Cuban government. When ideology is placed above objective information, truth and ethics are the first victims.


1 Juan O. Tamayo, «Muere el preso político cubano Orlando Zapata», El Nuevo Herald, February 24, 2010.

2 Amnesty International, «Death of Cuban Prisoner of Conscience on Hunger Strike Must Herald Change», February 24, 2010. (website consulted on February 28, 2010).

3 Enrique Ubieta, «Orlando Zapata, ¿un muerto útil?», Cubadebate, February 24, 2010.

4 Amnesty International, «Death of Cuban Prisoner of Conscience on Hunger Strike Must Herald Change», op. cit.

5 Amnesty International, «Cuba. Cinq années de trop, le nouveau gouvernement doit libérer les dissidents emprisonnés», March 18, 2008. (website consulted on April 23, 2008).

6 Andrea Rodriguez, «Prensa oficial reacciona a muerte de opositor», Associated Press, February 27, 2010.

7 El Nuevo Herald, «Rechazo mundial al régimen castrista», February 25, 2010.

8 Raúl Castro Ruz, «Declaraciones del Presidente de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros Raúl Castro Ruz sobre el fallecimiento del recluso Orlando Zapata Tamayo», February 24, 2010.

9 Associated Press, « Washington Post cuestiona política de concesiones a Cuba », February 26, 2010.

10 Charlotte Menegaux, «Les limites du ‘kit anti-suicide’ en prison», Le Figaro, February 25, 2010.

11 Maurice Lemoine, «Selon que vous serez Cubain ou Colombien…», Le Monde Diplomatique, February 26, 2010.

12 Antonio Albiñana, «Aparece en Colombia una fosa común con 2.000 cadáveres», Pú, February 26, 2010.

[Salim Lamrani is a professor at Paris Descartes University and Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée University, and French journalist, specialist on relations between Cuba and the US. He has just published Cuba: Ce que les médias ne vous diront jamais [Cuba: What the media will never tell you] (Paris: Editions Estrella, 2009). This article first appeared at MRZine. It has been posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with Salim Lamrani's permission.]]


"Powerful interests are behind the cyber-dissidence of Yoani Sánchez"
By Guillermo Nova

La República

Interview with Salim Lamrani, professor, writer and French journalist, specialist on the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. and author of the recently published book Cuba. Ce que les médias ne vous diront jamais ( Paris : Editions Estrella, 2009)

You have just published a new book about the treatment the communications media give to Cuba . What aspects of the Cuban reality do these media hide?

Basing themselves primarily on prejudices and rhetoric, the media completely distort the reality of this small country and present it as the antechamber of hell. They never do comparative studies nor do they report the voices of those who have differing opinions on this issue. Take the example par excellence: human rights. The media frequently stigmatizes the human rights situation in Cuba . In contrast, they never do a comparative study, even though it would be easy enough to take Amnesty International's annual reports and compare them. I do that in my book and the result is exemplary. In the entirety of the Americas , from Canada to Argentina , the country that least violates human rights is Cuba , according to Amnesty International. Now, this is not to say that Cuba is a paradise. There are some human rights violations on the island.

But I think the media also carefully conceal the geopolitical context in which Cuba finds itself and they do not say a word about the constant onslaught of political, economic, diplomatic and media aggression by Washington against Cuba . And as a result, they commit a serious violation of the professional ethics of journalism when they address the Cuban reality.

We must move beyond the Manichean view: Cuba is not " Alice in Wonderland" nor is it "Dante's Inferno" and that is what I try to explain in the book.

So why does the topic of Cuba stimulate so much misrepresentation in the media?

For the sole reason that Cuba has rejected private-enterprise capitalism and decided to place people -- not profits -- at the center of its project for society. This is an unforgivable sin to the massive economic and financial groups that control the vast majority of private media. As you can see, it has nothing to do with democracy or human rights.

Maintaining the embargo against Cuba requires this sort of media coverage?

For 30 years, the U.S. diplomatic rhetoric used to justify the economic siege against Cuba presented the alliance with the Soviet monster as the principle obstacle to normalizing relations with Havana . Of course, this assertion is lacking in historical foundation since hostility toward the revolutionary government began prior to the resumption of Cuba 's relations with the USSR in May of 1960. And when the Soviet bloc collapsed and the Red Menace disappeared in 1991, instead of normalizing relationships, the U.S. strengthened sanctions through the Torricelli Act in 1992, the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, Bush's First Plan in 2004, and his Second Plan in 2006. Only the rhetoric has changed. Now it is not the Soviet threat that prevents a modus vivendi but rather the "unacceptable human rights situation."

As if the U.S. or the European Union had the moral authority to give lessons on human rights to the Cubans.

The book includes a foreword by Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela, a great friend of Fidel Castro -- though the media does not want that to be known -- did me the immense honor of adding a reflection of his own to my book on Cuba 's essential role in the liberation of the peoples of Africa . It also explains why the first country he visited after his release from prison was not a neighboring African state, the United States nor Europe, but rather Cuba . So here I express my infinite debt of gratitude to him.

You usually publish articles and books or participate in public debates, but rarely appear on television programs. Why?

First, because very rarely am I invited and when I am invited they impose unacceptable conditions, such as debating against several opponents at once. But also because television is a peculiar sort of communications medium not conducive to extensive debate for one simple reason -- TV time is very short, very brief, and thus only compatible with conventional thinking. For example, if I say on TV that Cuba is a dictatorship, that is a message that is broadcast without any problem, with no need for further explanation. It is as if I were to say the earth is round, which is obvious. But, if I explain that the act of portraying Cuba as a dictatorship is to convey a caricatured image, it is essential that I explain my point of view and that takes time. And television does not gives you that kind of time.

How do you see the opposition phenomenon of bloggers?

First, from my personal point of view, nothing and no one should prevent Cuban bloggers from expressing their ideas and opinions without any fear of retaliation, because they have every right to harshly criticize the authorities in Havana . That said, it is evident that there are powerful interests opposed to the revolutionary process that hide themselves behind the smokescreen called "Cuban cyber-dissidence" and symbolized by Yoani Sanchez.

Simply put, if I were asked me to sign a petition defending the right of Yoani to criticize the Cuban government, I would sign it without any problem. However, if I were asked to sign a document saying that Yoani is a mere blogger whose objective is to denounce aberrations and contradictions of a system, I would not sign it because it is not true.

The contradiction between the media and power is every day greater. But what is becoming increasingly conspicuous is the absence of a forceful critique of that reality in Western countries.

The fundamental problem of the mass media is that there is no powerful counterweight to them, even though the alternative press on the internet plays a significant role in denouncing the excesses of these transnational information conglomerates.

Translated By David B.


The system rejects "the dirty debate" of the MEPs

by Mauricio Vicent in Havana, for El Pais (Spain)

11 March 2010

Cuba's National Assembly called "cynical" and "manipulative" the European Parliament's condemnation of the death of political prisoner Orlando Zapata, and denounced the existence of a "coordinated" media campaign to "fiercely" attack Cuba.

According to Havana, the European resolution, which considers "cruel" and "avoidable" the death of the opposition figure after 85 days of hunger strike, was approved after a "dirty debate" and is inadmissible because it "distorts facts, lies and hides realities ".

"Those who allowed the smuggling of detainees [rendition], the establishment of illegal prisons and the practice of torture, have no moral authority, to judge a people brutally assaulted and blockaded," said the Cuban parliament.

The declaration of the Assembly reiterates the official Cuban position that Orlando Zapata was simply a "common criminal" and said that, after being punished, he was "manipulated by U.S. interests and the internal counterrevolution." According to the Cuban MPs, the death of Zapata was solely his responsibility.

The Assembly said that the "unfortunate" Zapata's death "can not be used to condemn Cuba on the grounds that it could have prevented a death," and gives the example of Cuban cooperation with Haiti to demonstrate its commitment to "life" . "Behind that condemnation there is a deep cynicism. How many children's lives have been lost in poor nations by the decision of the rich countries, represented by the European Parliament, which does not meet its commitments on development aid?" the Assembly asked.

The European condemnation is "discriminatory and selective," said the statement, which equates the [US] Helms-Burton Act that tightened the embargo in 1996 with the US-European common position, adopted the same year. Neither "have the slightest future," Cuba says.