Saturday, 14 November 2009BY ERNEST COREA
IDN-InDepthNews Service
WASHINGTON DC (IDN) - For the eighteenth consecutive year, the international community as represented at the 192-member United Nations has urged the U.S. to end its vendetta against Cuba. The world bodyÃs urging came in the form of the annual ìCuba resolutionî which seeks to normalize economic relations between the two nations. Voting on the resolution was a lopsided 187 to 3 (U.S., Israel, and Palau) with two abstentions (Marshall Islands and Micronesia).
Affirmative votes for the ìCuban resolutionî have steadily increased. Last year the voting was 185 to 3 with two abstentions. The negatives and the abstentions were the same as in 2009.
This year, as before, the ìCuban resolutionî reaffirmed the international communityÃs commitment to ìfreedom of international trade;î expressed concern at the adverse effects on the Cuban people of economic, commercial, and financial bans; and pressed for the laws and measures concerned to be ìrepealed or invalidatedî as soon as possible.
The Group of 77 (G77) which now consists of 130 member-nations and is the largest coalition of developing countries suggested that the U.S. should follow the ìprinciples of mutual respect and non-interference in (CubaÃs) internal affairsî by ending the embargo. China which customarily associates itself with the G77 endorsed that position.
CubaÃs foreign minister Bruno Rodriguez claimed that because the Cuban people suffer severity and hardship when they are denied access to urgently needed medicines, the trade embargo could be considered a form of genocide.
Ambassador Susan Rice, the U.S. permanent representative at the UN, rejected the notion of genocide and said that ìsuch an egregious misuse of the term diminishes the real suffering of victims of genocide elsewhere in the worldî.
ëTOO LITTLE, TOO LATEÃ
So much for the debate. The ritual has ended. As noted, the resolution was overwhelmingly adopted. And? Well, yes, the embargo remains in place. What does the isolation of the U.S. on this issue, and its unwillingness or inability to re-cast its Cuba policy, imply?
Rice noted that some confidence building measures had taken place between the two countries, beginning with President ObamaÃs elimination of harsh restrictions imposed by President George W. Bush.
Now, Cuban Americans may travel without restrictions to and from Cuba. They can send more financial support to family members than previously permitted; and send them gifts of previously banned items such as fishing equipment and clothing.
Additionally, U.S. telecommunications companies are authorized to operate cell phone services in Cuba and provide Cubans with satellite television and radio services. The full list of revamped rules was announced at the first White House press briefing conducted entirely in Spanish.
Since then, American and Cuban representatives have met in both countries to discuss orderly migration as well as direct postal services. There has also been, and remains, a limited bilateral trade relationship. U.S. companies sold some $710 million worth of agricultural and food products to Cuba in 2008, and congressional delegations from AmericaÃs agricultural states support more trade and commerce with Cuba.
Overwhelming support for the ìCuba resolutionî is a sign that the Cubans themselves and most of the world at large consider these measures inadequate, perhaps a case of ìtoo little, too lateî.
It also demonstrates the high regard in which Cubans continue to be held internationally, and is a sign of CubaÃs engagement with much of the international community.
Cuba has expanded and strengthened its bilateral relations with neighbours and across the world. The Organization of American States (OAS) which removed Cuba from membership in 1962 voted in June this year to invite it back in. Cuba has not responded.
CubaÃs counsel is respected in the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) which has held two summits in Havana; in 1979 and 2006. Cuba chaired NAM from 1979 to 1983 and from 2006 to 2009. The G77 held its first South Summit in Havana in 2000. Cuba supports South-South arrangements on the development front.
SNAPSHOT
Meanwhile, support for tearing down the barriers that separate the two countries has grown in the U.S. as shown in this snapshot of public opinion recorded by a WorldPublic Opinion.org poll of April this year:
By a margin of 59 percent to 39 percent, Americans favour a new approach in U.S.-Cuba relations;
79 percent approve of the new arrangements that eased travel restrictions for Cuban Americans;
70 percent want all Americans, i.e. not only Cuban expatriates, to be free to visit Cuba without restrictions;
75 percent consider it a good idea for the leaders of the two countries to meet;
69 percent support the re-establishment of diplomatic relations; and
71 percent -- thatÃs a 45 point spread, 71 to 26 -- are convinced that improved bilateral relations will bring about a more democratic Cuba.
At the federal political level, there is bipartisan support for opening a new chapter in the U.S.-Cuba relationship, although there is vocal opposition as well. A leading supporter of change is Senator Richard Lugar, a leader of the Republican PartyÃs foreign policy establishment.
Lugar, who is the senior Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a letter to Obama that "to the world, our current approach defies logic: even during the lowest depths of the Cold War, direct diplomatic channels with the former Soviet Union were never severed."
Lugar said as well that ìbecause Latin AmericaÃs posture toward Cuba favors dialogue, I am concerned that our current approach could serve as an impediment to gaining support for larger goals in a region in which historical resentments colour our interactions. In reforming our approach to Cuba, you have an opportunity to significantly advance our interests and standing in the hemisphere.î
Diplomatic relations have been maintained and trade carried out with numerous states whose governments were less than democratic, and whose leaders considered the whole panoply of human rights a quaint extravagance. Many of them have been welcomed in Washington DC and their views avidly entertained.
The perpetuation of abnormal U.S.-Cuba relations is an aberration, and the explanations for this surreal policy need to be identified, confronted, and overcome.
PUNISHMENT
A persistent assumption or perhaps hope among supporters of the embargo is that keeping it unchanged will eventually make the Cubans ìcry uncleî. In other words, they will wilt under pressure, change their domestic political structure, and come begging to the U.S.
This fantasy has not turned into reality in nearly 50 years. What makes it more likely to pop up as fact in the next 50?
Cubans can lay on the charm as few others can. They can also be relentlessly stubborn. They will not succumb to external pressure or ìleverageî.
Besides, the embargo was from the beginning meant to be a form of punishment, not an ìincentiveî for political change. President Eisenhower launched trade sanctions against Cuba when he cancelled CubaÃs quota of sugar imports in retaliation against Fidel CastroÃs order nationalizing US commercial enterprises and properties. This was clearly an act of punishment.
In true Cuban style, Castro responded by nationalizing all U.S.-owned industrial and agrarian ventures. Eisenhower imposed a partial embargo on trade with Cuba in return. Cuba then decided to nationalize all remaining U.S. property in the country.
President Kennedy expanded the limited embargo after the Bay of Pigs invasion turned into a catastrophe, and he strengthened the embargo following the Missiles Crisis of 1962. The fact that the embargo was from the beginning meant as punishment, not as leverage, makes nonsense of the view that it should be kept in place until Cuba dismantles its political system.
The punitive aspect of the embargo ties in with its cold war character. As the post-Batista government in Cuba dismantled outposts of the U.S. private sector, developed a relationship with the Soviet Union, and planned to export its political ideology to neighbouring countries and elsewhere, it was considered a symbol of Soviet expansion into AmericaÃs ìbackyard.î
This was both a real security threat -- as the Missiles Crisis showed -- and an intolerable act of political ìimpudenceî. The ìupstartî Cubans had to be taught a lesson while, at the same time, the cold war threat it represented was controlled or eliminated. Hence, not only the embargo but the reported conspiracies against Castro.
The cold war has ended, and Cuba certainly does not represent either a political or security threat to the U.S., so why should the embargo be maintained?
Despite some of its impressive economic and social advances (reported in the CIA World Fact Book, for instance), Cuba is not a democracy. Amnesty International in its 2008 report on Cuba reported that "restrictions on freedom of expression, association and movement remained severe. At least 62 prisoners of conscience remained imprisoned". If trade bans are to be imposed against all governments that follow similar practices international trade flows will be down to a trickle.
Perhaps, then, the ìconventional wisdomî is correct: continuation of the embargo is based on the Florida Factor. ObamaÃs path to re-election in 2012 will be easier than otherwise if he can carry Florida as he did in 2008, when he received 57 percent of the Hispanic vote, 13 points more than Senator Kerry did four years before. It is true that attitudes are changing among Cuban Americans. But Obama, under ceaseless pressure from many directions, will not be inclined to take chances. He can be expected to take a step-by-step approach.
Nevertheless, consider this: Pushing back against the ìCuban resolutionî, Rice said that ìit is high time . . . to encourage progress towards genuine changeî. IsnÃt that sound advice for the arbiters of U.S. policy toward Cuba to consider? (IDN-InDepthNews/11.11.09)
|
Saturday, 14 November 2009
|
|
