THE 'OBSERVER' AND CUBA
Sta,--In the course of Starbuck's faint-hearted apology to the Observer for his earlier criticism of that paper's comment on the report of the Inter- national Commission of Jurists on 'Cuba and the Rule of Law,' he states that the Observer's comment 'did not contain one single word' (Starbuck's italics) in condemnation of the torture of prisoners. arbitrary police tyranny and the general denial of legal rights in Cuba. Your readers no doubt vvould like to be reminded that the Observer stated that the Commission's report 'demonstrates convincinglY enough that under Dr. Castro, no less than under General Batista, the rule of law is in indefinite sus' pension.' Perhaps even Starbuck will admit that this is an implied condemnation of Dr. Castro's regime. Space in the newspaper did not permit the listing of specific breaches of the rule of law. The Observer holds no greater brief for what is hap- pening in Castro's Cuba than it did for the atrocities committed under Batista. What the Observer corn" plained of was that the Commission did not take account of the state of emergency in Cuba which might have mitigated some of the crimes com- mitted by the Castro regime.
Louts suom-coona Legal Correspondent of the Observer [Starbuck writes: 'Unfortunately, the condemnation of Dr. Castro's regime contained in the Observer's editorial was so implicit as to be unnoticeable. Mr. Blom-Cooper is mistaken in reading an apologY: however faint-hearted, into my paragraph of las' week.'—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
