The Case Of James Sabzali

In the spring of 2003, HRW directed a message to its mailing list about a series of convictions in Cuba that sentenced non-violent ‘criminals’ to lengthy prison terms. These ‘criminals’ were declared guilty under Cuban law of subversion; at least one was also convicted of treason. HRW has some serious, and perhaps justified, concerns about the fairness of the legal process and whether the complaints about these particular individuals even really fit the confines of Cuban law, let alone international norms. But whether we like it or not, there is a fuzzy line in punishment that separates harsh from inhumane. These criminals are what most of us would call ‘dissidents’ and they have received sentences ranging from twelve to twenty-seven years. Cuban authorities also began a crackdown in mid-March that saw the arrests of around 100 people. Ironically, the crackdown and these harsh sentences came just as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was busy in Geneva debating the issue of human rights in Cuba. Over the previous eleven years, the Commission had already issued ten declarations condemning Cuba’s human rights practices. Just about one year earlier, in April 2002, James Sabzali was convicted in Philadelphia of violating America’s 1919 'Trading with the Enemy Act'. Sabzali is a Canadian citizen, born in Trinidad, and working in the United States where he was convicted along with two American citizens. He was originally charged almost three years earlier and has already been under house arrest in Philadelphia since the conviction. But more than a year and a half after his conviction, he is still not sentenced. So far, he is the only foreign national to be prosecuted for violating the US government’s 40-year embargo of Cuba. He was convicted of twenty counts of trading with the enemy and one count of conspiracy. At least seven of the charges on which he was convicted are for trades he made while living in Canada where the 'Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act' forbids Canadians from complying with the US embargo. In fact, as a Canadian citizen, Sabzali was obliged to ignore the US embargo and to inform the Canadian government of any orders from the United States to refrain from trade with Cuba for political or legal reasons. Other charges related to shipments to Cuba originating in Spain, Italy, Britain, and Mexico; none of those nations recognize the US anti-Cuban legislation. If Sabzali receives the maximum penalty under US law, he faces a possible 205 years in prison and $5 million dollars in fines. Prosecutors were said to be willing to settle for 62 months in prison but the sentencing has been repeatedly pushed back and now a federal judge has ordered a new trial. There is no guarantee that he will fare any better with a new trial and, if convicted again, he could even receive a much more brutal sentence than originally proposed by the first trial prosecutor. An official from the US Attorney General’s office has commented that "This case was never about commerce between Canada and Cuba. It's about commerce between the United States with Cuba. We know Canada trades with Cuba. We don't have a beef with that." One wonders, then, why Sabzali was charged with offenses which occurred in Canada, where the trade did not involve the United States and where it was a requirement of law that Sabzali ignore the American embargo. The Canadian government did lodge a formal protest with American authorities at the time the charges were laid but, de rigueur, they continue to await a response. In light of the recent allegations against the government of Canada in the Arar and Sampson cases, no one should be surprised that we have taken no action on behalf of Sabzali. It appears that our notion of ‘quiet diplomacy’ really amounts to doing nothing and letting the situations play themselves out. By the way, Sabzali’s crime was selling water purification systems to Cuban hospitals. US officials in the Justice and State Departments claim that water purification is a matter of ‘national security’ for the United States. It is unclear if national security is at risk by purifying anyone’s water, or only Cuban water, and there is no leeway given for the humanitarian aspect of purified water for hospitals. Perhaps if you can get 205 years in the slammer for helping to provide clean water for hospitals, then twenty-seven years for conducting activities that you know your government considers to be treasonous or seditious doesn’t seem so bad. Otherwise, there isn’t much explanation for why Human Rights Watch has never so much as raised an eyebrow over James Sabzali and this case of abused human rights. Their mandate might be served better if they occasionally looked closer to home. Sabzali can forget about any assistance from the government of Canada; we have already proved ourselves unwilling to apply pressure to the nations with whom we are only modestly friendly, we certainly aren’t going to go to bat for one of our citizens who is being abused by our best friend. And if you have a spare moment, enter ‘James Sabzali’ into a search engine and see if you can locate any US-based media that covered this story. Or even much Canadian media, for that matter. ---- Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing businesses with the tools and expertise to reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. Canadian businesses can reach him at paul@working-solutions.ca. He has traveled extensively in what is usually known as "the Third World" and has an abiding interest in history, social justice, morality and, well, just about everything. Paul is also a freelance writer and can be reached at paul@escritoire.ca. He lives in Canada.