Garzon is visiting Chile, where he has been hailed as a hero by relatives of former victims of the Pinochet dictatorship.
In an interview with the daily La Nacion, he calls for “change from within” in Cuba towards “freedom and democracy”, arguing that the Castro regime is “insupportable” because it restricts freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc, etc.
And just so you don’t think he is biased, the magistrate also suggests, unprompted, it would seem, that the US commercial embargo on the island should be lifted at once.
So, here is my point: Yes, we could spend the next week or so arguing about the US embargo and how effective or otherwise it has been. It’s a legitimate debate. But why the connection? Is Garzon implying that the lack of basic political rights in Cuba under Fidel Castro is the result of the US embargo?
Anyway, I bet Garzon won't get an invitation to visit Havana in a hurry.