US urged to end economic blockade on Cuba

We do agree on most of this. Please understand I'm not suggesting that South and Central America are or were more racist than the U.S. in their history, only that the Iberian colonial masters and their successoers applied their own variety of elimination of native peoples and exploitation of African slaves, just as did their cousins in the U.S. In both cases it was the later generations of colonists who were most aggressive in suppressing the native population - and for obvious reasons: they were in direct conflict with them for the land. The U.S. suppression of the Cherokees (who attempted to adopt the European culture and language is a bit similar to the struggle of the Guarani in Paraguay & Brasil. My point is that the council of Iberian nations or whatever it calls itself is beiong hypocritical and petty.

With respect to Cuba and Castro = it just isn't worth our trouble to remove this tired and failing, but very clever dictator. It is the misfortune of the Cuban people that they did not create a better government or overthrow the tyrant who now oppresses them. we need to conserve our strength and resources, taking on only those struggles that directly threaten our vital interests, and avoid marching off smartly in all directions. Castro and Cuba are simply not very important to us.

Cuba Today: A Nation Becoming a University
by Cliff DuRand http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8898

Even if georgeob1 make some good points, as usual, I tend to agree with Panzade.

The notion that the US did no harm to Cuba is preposterous.

I will go back only briefly to the independence war, when the US substituted, in the last minute, the already winning Cuban freedom fighters against Spain, thus "limping" Cuban independence, at least on the eyes of every Cuban (and getting a good grip in the Phillipines and Puerto Rico in the negotiations after the Spanish-American war).

The US never supported tyrant Castro, yes. But it did support dictator Batista, and helpéd make things easier for big American produce and sugarcane companies, and the Italian-American mafia, who had a stronghold in the island's casinos, whorehouses, betting places and the like.
This, the average Cuban saw as a very evil hand.

The US actively fought agaisnt Castro even when he was inmensely popular among his people, and there was still a big discussion about the path of the revolution. American stiffness (if he's not OUR son of a bitch, we'll overthrow him, like we did with Arbenz in Guatemala) helped the hard-liners within the revolution and helped throw Cuba into Communism and a one man autocracy, That's what I call harm.

The embargo has always been senseless and stupid. I agree that lifting it today would give an inmediate ideological boost to Fidel. But I think that after the bubble, the boost will become a bust. The embargo has been THE GREATEST PRETEXT Castro had had over this decades to justify economic failures and political repression. The embargo says: "Cuba has a big, active, enemy" and every Cuban democrat is, thus, acused of helping the Enemy.
If the embargo was lifted, sooner or later, it would be seen that Emperor Fidel has no clothes.

...

I will not dwell with Cuban propaganda posts. There's hardly a word of truth in them.

---


About racism in the independence wars of Latin America:
Perhaps Argentina and Uruguay, being nations of colonists rather than conquerer nations, had less of a racial scent in their independence wars.
Other nations did.
Mexico is a clear example. Colonial New Spain (what is now Mexico, Central America and several US states) was a society divided by racial status. Some jobs were not available to indians. Some were not available to mestizos. Some were only available to criollos (born in the Americas of Spanish blood). Some, yet, were only available to Peninsulares (born in Spain). This element was key to the popular revolt.

Some absurd contentions...the truth must lie somewhat more in the middle

In a nutshell

I stand corrected...however, in terms of black/white racism in Brazil, Cuba and Dominica, the US has a much bigger problem...in my estimation

I don't think it is accurate to say we "supported" Batista. Previously Cuba had, at best, a very unstable democracy and was infected with the problems of racial stratification, concentration of wealth and land, and authoritarianism that infected other Latin American countries. We recognized Batista's government and dealt with him - then in the context of the Cold War and the prospect of socialist revolutionary movements around the world. Finally - why should we now imitate our former policy with the current dictator? If our recognition of Batista was bad, how could recognition of Castro be good ?

The American mafia had just recently consolidated its infiltration of Cuba's gambling casinos & whorehouses when Castro took over.. However they were already well-established by the time the Mafia arrived on the scene.


Why be vague about it? Do you argue that- had the U.S. welcomed Castro's revolution it would have somehow become democratic? I believe that implied proposition is quite thoroughly contrary to the facts.

I believe the embargo made sense when it was enacted. The Soviets were using Cuba to export weapoins and revolution throughout the hemisphers, and our actions to limit the contagion were both effective and appropriate. Today it is meaningless, but I believe that removing it would do more harm than good.

Mostly I regard interest in the embargo question as a gross denial of the truly significant and important fact -- that of Castro's continued oppression and totalitarian rule. Castro is not a product of the embargo - he is its cause. If there is anyone out there who somehow believes - in the face of so much evidence to the contrary - that Castro and the revolution he represents are anything but regressive tyranny, I cannot imagine that the mere lifting of the U.S. embargo will alter their views. Castro is adept at blaming his repeated failures on the actions of others. The effort to somehow deprive this supreme liar of material for his prevarications is at best a fool's errand.

Lastly, Cuba just isn't very important to us. Best to just wait for the rotten apple to fall.

Sorry for the late response, but I kind of cease to exist during the World Series.

Certainly, the Cold War is a key to understand the policies of those days. My personal belief is that the US was too worried about socialism and not worried enough about democracy. They didn't see Batista as a good, I concede, but as a lesser evil. Only he was seen not as a lesser evil than a socialist ruler, but also as a lesser evil than a nationalist, social reform minded democrat.

This is interesting, since Marxism emphasizes economics and pro-market ideology is supposed to emphasize freedom. The overall American attitude towards the Third World emphasized economics so much, it gave reason to Marxist reasoning: "they're not interested in freedom, but in profits for US corporations".

----
Castro was not Communist from the beginning. He was a member of the Orthodox Revolutionary Party, an organization much nearer Latin American nationalist populism, Perón style. Most of the early revolutionary leaders, even if left leaning, did not know a thing about Marxism and had no ties to the Soviet Union. The big exception was an outsider, Che Guevara. The goal most revolutionaries had was to become Cuba "The Switzerland of the Americas" (Castro's words), but their real model was Uruguay,

On the early days of the Revolution there were huge debates among leaders, regarding the course of the Revolution. The US did everything to radicalize the majority of them (Nixon had a personal dislike for Castro, and did not receive him, when he visited the US, among other slaps).
Dissension appeared, and the leader among the dissenter was Comandante Huber Matos. The other important moderate was Comandante Camilo Cienfuegos, number 2 of the Revolution (Guevara was number 3). When Matos revolved, in the province of Oriente, Camilo Cienfuegos was sent to Santiago to negotiate. He died on a plane crash on his way back (some say he was murdered by Castro). Matos spent many years as a political prisoner.

---

If Castro caused the embargo, why wasn't there an embargo against a comparable tyrant, Nicolae Ceaucescu?
Was there, I ask, a mandatory embargo against Kim Il Sung or Mao Tse Tung? I don't know, but can't recall one.

----

Will be back later on racism in the Caribbean countries.

THE BLOCKADE IS AN ACT OF ECONOMIC WAR

Cubanow.- Cuba presented its Report on Resolution 59/11 of the United Nations General Assembly, entitled "The necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba .



The following excerpts include the Introduction and Conclusions of the Report, presented last August. Click here for the full text: http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Portals/0/INF%20BLOQUEO16%20x%2021%20INGLES%202005.doc.



Introduction: The economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba is the longest-lasting and cruelest of its kind know to human history and is an essential element in the United States' hostile and aggressive policies regarding the Cuban people. Its aim, made explicit on 6 April 1960, is the destruction of the Cuban Revolution: (…) through frustration and discouragement based on dissatisfaction and economic difficulties (…) to withhold funds and supplies to Cuba in order to cut real income thereby causing starvation, desperation and the overthrow of the government (...)"



It is equally an essential component of the policy of state terrorism against Cuba which silently, systematically, cumulatively, inhumanly, ruthlessly affects the population with no regard for age, sex, race, religious belief or social position.



This policy, implemented and added to by ten US administrations also amounts to an act of genocide under the provisions of paragraph (c) of article II of the Geneva Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948 and therefore constitutes a violation of International Law. This Convention defines this as ?'(…) acts perpetrated with the intention to totally or partially destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group', and in these cases provides for ?'the intentional subjugation of the group to conditions that result in their total or partial physical destruction'.



The blockade on Cuba is an act of economic war. There is no regulation of International Law which justifies a blockade in times of peace. Since 1909, in the London Naval Conference, as a principle of International Law, it was defined that ?'blockade is an act of war', and based on this, its use is only possible between countries at war.



Although the total blockade on trade between Cuba and the United States was formally decreed by an Executive Order issued by President John F. Kennedy on February 3 rd, 1962, measures that are part of the blockade were put in place just a few weeks after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution on January 1 st, 1959.



On February 12 th, 1959, the US Government refused to grant a modest credit requested by Cuba to maintain the stability of the national currency. Later, other measures were applied such as the restriction of the supply of fuel to the Island by American transnational companies, the halting of industrial factories, the prohibition of exports to Cuba and the partial, and later total, suppression of the sugar quota.



By virtue of the blockade, among other restrictions, Cuba cannot export any product to the United States, or import any merchandise from this country: American tourists are prohibited from visiting; the dollar cannot be used in the country's transactions with foreign countries; the country has no access to credit, and cannot carry out transactions with regional or American multilateral financial institutions and their ships and aircrafts must not enter American territory.



The blockade has a marked extraterritorial component. In 1992, with a view to intensifying the effects of Cuba's loss of 85% of its foreign trade after the Soviet Union and the European socialist block fell apart, the United States passed the Torricelli Act, which removed Cuba's ability to purchase medicines and food from US subsidiaries in third countries which stood at US$718 million in 1991. The Torricelli Act placed tight restrictions on ships sailing to and from Cuba, thus making formal its serious extraterritorial provisions. A ship from a third country that docks in Cuban waters cannot enter a port in the United States until 6 months have passed and said country has obtained a new permission permit.



The 1996 Helms-Burton Act made the effects of the blockade worse, increased the number and scope of the provisions with an extraterritorial impact, instituted persecution of and sanctions on actual and potential foreign investors in Cuba and authorized funding for hostile, subversive and aggressive acts against the Cuban people.



From the end of 2001, and by virtue of legislation passed by US Congress in 2000, as a result of strong pressure from agricultural sectors in the United States and the American people in general, Cuba began to make purchases of goods in the United States, which in 2004 amounted to 474.1 million dollars, albeit with severe restrictions and complicated procedures, to extraordinary imports of food and medicines by Cuba. Cuba has to pay in cash and in advance -with no chance of obtaining financial credit, not even private credit. The sale and transportation of the merchandise means a license has to be obtained for each operation. Cuba cannot use its merchant fleet for transporting these goods, it has to use ships from third countries, and, mostly, from the United States. Payments are made through banks in third countries since direct banking relations are forbidden.



The restrictions on importing medical goods are so extensive that these are almost unfeasible. They include the exporter having to verify the use of the product or the equipment when it reaches its final destination and a ban on the sale to Cuba of goods and equipment involving advanced technology.



More than 70% of Cubans were born and have lived under the blockade. The Cuban people defend their right to self-determination and demand respect for their sovereign system of independence, social justice and fairness.



According to preliminary, conservative estimates, the direct economic damage to the Cuban people resulting from the blockade is over US$82 billion, an average of US$1,782 million annually. This figure does not include the more than US$54 billion of direct damage occasioned by sabotage and terrorist acts encouraged, organized and financed in the United States nor the value of the goods not made or the damage stemming from the onerous credit conditions imposed on Cuba. This year the damage amounted to US$2,674.



The General Assembly's demand that this blockade policy be ended, contained in thirteen of the resolutions passed with the virtually unanimous support of the UN's member states has been defied by US authorities, thus confirming their total contempt for the United Nations, for multilateralism and for international law.



On June 30 th, 2004 the measures included in the report from the self-proclaimed "Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba" to which George W. Bush had given his approval on May 6 th, that year, came into effect. Its 450 pages contain proposal for new actions and measures intended to intensify the blockade by stepping up actions aimed at discouraging tourism and investment in Cuba, by restricting financial flow and visits to the island and by placing even more restrictions on family remittances and exchanges in various spheres, the aim being to bring about conditions which would allow the US to intervene in Cuba, thus permitting them to impose the "regime change" to which the US president made reference on May 20 th, of that year.



The period covered by this report -the second half of 2004 and the first half of 2005- has witnessed the implementation of those measures; this once again proves the US administration's criminal plans for the Cuban people.






Conclusions:



---The direct economic damage inflicted on the Cuban people by the application of the blockade, taken from preliminary conservative calculations, exceeds 82 thousand million dollars; an average of 1,782 million dollars a year. This sum does not include the more than 54 thousand million dollars attributable to direct damage to the country's economic and social objectives by way of sabotage and terrorist acts encouraged, organized and financed from the United States; nor does it include the value of the products that were not produced or the damage caused by the onerous credit conditions imposed on Cuba. The detrimental effects to the country this year surpassed 2,764 million dollars.


---In its second term in office, the Administration of President George W. Bush continues to take its policy of aggression and blockade against the people of Cuba to new heights, in blatant contempt of the principles of the United Nations Charter and International Law, of the freedom of commerce and navigation, and of the repeated and almost unanimous desire of the international community to put an end to this genocidal policy, as expressed in successive resolutions passed by the General Assembly.


---The application of the blockade severely affects not only the Cuban people: it is also detrimental to the interests and rights of the people of the United States and other countries around the world. Last year was marked by an increase in the extraterritorial effect of the blockade, when the regulations, sanctions and threats against foreign citizens and companies were made stricter and fiercer.


---The Cuban people will never renounce their independence, sovereignty and right to free rule. Despite the blockade, this decision has allowed us to build an increasingly just, fair and cultured society that upholds ideals of solidarity with other peoples from countries around the world, including the United States.


--- Cuba knows that it can continue to count on the support of the international community in defending its just call for the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on the Cuban people by the United States Government to be lifted.

Glad to see that Blueflame is so willing to enlighten us here with the propaganda of the miserable government that still oppresses the Cuban people.

It is sufficient to note that, notwithstanding the bold assertions in the comtemptable screed above, the Cuban people are neither free, noir independent, nor sovereign. They are under the thumb of a backward tyrant who has ruled them in the most authoritarian manner for over forty years - and never once held an election.

Now with respect to the rather more thoughtful comments by Fbaezer--



An interesting observation with respect to the Cold war. However, please note that our Cold War opponents - and as well many of the "non aligned nations" - styled themselves as democracies or "peoples democracies" even though they were almost all avowedly Socialist -- and authoritarian, in many cases, rather awful tyrannies. They freely identified themselves as socialistic and were successful in making that (and the imaginary benefits they promised) the issue between us. One could argue that we failed to confront and reverse this gambit, but, frankly I don't see how it could have been done. So many of the self-described "intellectuals" of the West clung to the illusions promised by Soviet and other forms of Socialism, often in the face of overwhelming evidence of the brutality and incompetence of these regimes and the backward economic systems they fostered.

The first generation of post-colonial African rulers adopted the "Social Democratic" models then much loved by international "intellectuals". Nearly all degenerasted into corrupt, inept authoritarian dictatorships that wasted a generation to poverty and tyranny.

The other, perhaps more benign forms of authoritarianism to which you referred, ranging (in the Western hemisphere) from Peronism to the PRI, produced - at best - stagnation (Mexico) and at worst a near permanent national neurosis (Argentina). All of these systems were Democratic in form and all stoutly resisted any suggestion that they were otherwise. However they also limited freedom and suppressed free economic activity on the part of their people. Even Uruguay isn't much to brag about.(Mexico has - happily - on its own, broken free of its former stagnation, and, though there are undoubtedly difficulties ahead, will almost certainly grow in prosperity and freedom.)

We were indeed interested in profits for our companies, but we were interested in freedom too. We can be justifiably criticized for some inconsistency in pursuing these goals, but I think we can be forgiven for concluding that a Cuba, backed by the Soviet Union, posed a more proximate hazard to us than (say) a Romania led by a crazed Socialist tyrant and trusted by no one.

I don't think that either you or I truly knows what were Castro's true thoughts and beliefs, either then or now. It is sufficient to note his actions. Clearly he was disposed to be an authoritarian tyrant in any evolution his revolution might take. Frankly I don't give much importance to the thoretical debates among authoritarian figures (revolutionaries or otherwise) who are clearly all disposed to enforce their beliefs as to how people should live - with or without their consent. Do the different shades of the theologies behind their totalitarian authoritarianism really matter at all? I don't think so.

We did indeed have comparable embargoes against Mao's China and North Koreas. Mostly it was done as a security measure to prevent (or merely limit) infiltration and the export of militarily useful technologies.

The matter of the Cuban embargo is interesting only as an indicator of the degree to which people will focus on trivia in the face of serious issues.
Again, Cuba has no money with which to buy our goods, and produces nothing we have a great interest in buying. (The Dominican Cohibas are a most acceptable substitute, and, besides I have cut back on the cigars.)

One can pity the Cuban people and wish that they would rise up and claim their freedom. However - as is so often the case - they have not. For our part we should avoid the assumption that we are suitable reformers for the world. We should focus only on those issues which truly threaten us. Overall, I think we have followed that standard reasonably well. We have not always been either wise or successful, but overall done a bit better in our moment in history's sun than did most who have gone before us.

It seems not only that there is no end of the US ban, but it has been "broadened":

While we're urging countries to abandon things, I urge Cuba to abandon it's present form of government - dictatorship - and let its citizen's choose their government in elections.

although rather capricious and dated...this list begs the question "Why such an uneven use of economic sanctions?"
Is it possibly because Cuba offers no compensation for our goodwill?

1. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 61. In power since 1989. Last year's rank: 7

2. Kim Jong Il, North Korea. Age 62. In power since 1994. Last year's rank: 1

3. Than Shwe, Burma. Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year's rank: 2

4. Hu Jintao, China. Age 62. In power since 2002. Last year's rank: 3

5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 81. In power since 1995. Last year's rank: 5