Counting the cost of the Cuban blockade

[Judi Lynn]

Counting the cost of the Cuban blockade

Oct Saturday 1 2016

Cuba has once again presented its annual motion to the United Nations. This will be the 25th year it has been forced to protest against the illegal US blockade against its country.

It’s titled: “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” and sets out in detail the US laws that support the blockade, the limitations of the recent changes in US policies by the Obama administration and a huge list of examples illustrating the full and pernicious impact of the blockade on the lives of the people of Cuba.

Having seen Cuban and US embassies opening and President Barack Obama himself visiting Havana many people across the globe believe that the blockade is now over and all is well between the two countries.

The truth is in fact very different.

The US has just renewed its designation of Cuba as an “enemy” under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, thus using its foreign policy interests as the foundation for the laws and regulations that underpin the extraterritorial blockade that continues to hinder Cuba’s economic development.

More:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-46f7-Counting-the-cost-of-the-Cuban-blockade

Good Reads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016167754

[EX500rider]

1. Embargo not the same thing as a blockade....there is no blockade.

[Judi Lynn]

2. U.S.- Cuba relations not normalized until blockade ends

Last edited Sun Oct 2, 2016, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)

U.S.- Cuba relations not normalized until [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] ends

by: Richard Grassl
September 21 2016

In normal circumstances, commercial relations between two nations involve travel and trade and they reflect mutual respect for the well-being of both of them. An ability to make contact and do business with each other is as old as commerce itself.

This approach ought to apply to the government and people of Cuba inasmuch they are at peace with the world and are recognized as a leader in Latin America. For example, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 contains a provision harmful to the conduct of normal business affairs with Cuba, despite the fact that it was enacted with good intentions by Congress to improve relations, and also help out agribusiness. It requires Cuba to pay cash in advance to purchase food products and medicine from the US market. Cuba is denied credit from U.S. financial institutions which would expand trade that could benefit U.S. citizens and contribute to a more well-balanced arrangement.

As [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] policy stands now, Cuban exports - from rum and cigars, to diabetes medicines and lung cancer vaccines - cannot legally be sold in the United States.

Cuba has long insisted that it is willing to talk with the U.S. government on the condition that normal relations are based on lifting the commercial, economic, and financial sanctions, otherwise known as the U.S. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] However, after respective embassies had been re-established as of August 14, 2015, President Obama's simple recognition that U.S. policy had "failed miserably" did not carry sufficient weight with Congress to reverse decades of isolation, hostility, and misunderstanding.

More:
http://www.peoplesworld.org/u-s-cuba-relations-not-normalized-until-blockade-ends/

[Judi Lynn]

3. The US Blockade of Cuba: Its Effects and Global Consequences

The US [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] of Cuba: Its Effects and Global Consequences

Nicholas Partyka I Geopolitics I Analysis I May 2nd, 2014

It is not possible to discuss almost any aspect of life in Cuba without talking about the US [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] of the island. That the US has an 'embargo' against the island is one of the few things that Americans might know about Cuba. This policy of economic warfare against our hemispheric neighbor has been in place for more than five decades now. In this dispatch, I want to focus on the [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] policy. We will look briefly at why it exists, its aims, its status under international law, and what its main effects are. Though many Americans may know that there is an "embargo" (though [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] is more accurate), few likely know how it works and what its costs are. Attempting to remedy this situation will be the point of this part of the series.

On New Year's Eve 1958, Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba. The next day, the revolutionary government took control of the country. For the better part of a year, the US foreign policy establishment did not know what to make of Fidel Castro and his revolution. Relations remained cordial until Fidel announced the implementation of a set of Agrarian Reform laws. These laws aimed to put land in the hands of poor farmers who had been largely excluded from land ownership under the old regime. Many of the lands nationalized under Fidel's measures belonged to US citizens or companies; e.g. King Ranch. Other nations also had property nationalized in Cuba in the wake of the revolution, but only the US refused compensation, which the Cubans offered.

In a somewhat ironic twist, the Cubans offered compensation for nationalized property on the basis of the property's value as determined by the most recent pre-revolutionary Cuban tax assessments. Now, this would only be a problem for US owners of Cuban property to be nationalized if those owners felt that there was too large a discrepancy between the value of the compensation offered and the market value of that property. This kind of situation would be likely to come about if US owners had massively underreported the value of their Cuban property to Cuban tax officials (perhaps with official blessing of the regime at the time). The response of the US to these compensation matters also has nothing to do with the fact that the then-sitting CIA Director, Allen Dulles, sat on the Board of Directors for at least one large US firm to have property nationalized in Cuba, namely the infamous United Fruit Company.

Before the revolution, underreporting taxable value saved money in taxes and thus put more of it back in the owner's pocket. After the revolution however, this meant that those owners would lose out in a compensation package offered by the new Cuban government as the value of the compensation offered would be substantially less than what the property would be worth on the market. US owners of Cuban property wanted to both receive the real value of their property, but also not thereby tacitly admit what Castro and the Cuban revolution had accused them of, namely taking advantage of Cuba and Cubans for their own private gain. This is a classic example of one not being able to have one's cake and eat it too. The refusal of the US to acknowledge this had lead to the lion's share of the trials and tribulations that have arisen as the US and Cuba attempt to normalize relations.

More:
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/cuba-project-part-two.html#.V_D3eUkVCbx

[Judi Lynn]

4. Destabiliziation in Latin America

June 27, 2014
Destabiliziation in Latin America

by Matt Peppe


. . .

The largest act of subversion is, of course, the [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade, [/FONT] euphemistically known in the U.S. as an “embargo.” The U.S. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] against Cuba has now lasted more than a half century as a punishment for Cuba achieving self-determination. The [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] is an act of warfare, as it is based on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA), which is only applicable during times of war. The [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] has been expanded and strengthened over the years with various violations of international law such as the Helms-Burton Act and the Torricelli Act. The policy of the U.S. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade [/FONT] has been found to be an illegal violation of international law for 22 straight years by 99% of the world’s nations, who have demanded its end.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/27/destabiliziation-in-latin-america/

[Judi Lynn]

5. As General Assembly Demands End to Cuba Blockade for Twenty-Third Consecutive Year, Country’s Foreig

General Assembly>
Plenary


Sixty-ninth session, 30th & 31st Meetings (AM & PM)

As General Assembly Demands End to Cuba [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade, [/FONT] for Twenty-Third Consecutive Year, Country’s Foreign Minister Cites Losses Exceeding $1 Trillion

28 October 2014



United States Delegate Says Cuban Policies to Blame for Economic Woes

The General Assembly today adopted a resolution which for the twenty-third year in a row called for an end to the United States economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba.

Exposing an intractable demarcation of the international community, 188 Member States voted in favour and, as in previous years, the United States and Israel voted against. Three small island States — Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau — abstained from the vote.

By the terms of the text, the Assembly reiterated its call upon States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and regulations, such as the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, the extraterritorial effects of which affected the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation.

It once again urged States that had and continued to apply such laws to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible, in line with their obligations under the United Nations Charter and international law.

In recent times, the [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade, [/FONT] imposed by the United States against Cuba had been tightened, and its extraterritorial implementation had also been strengthened through the imposition of unprecedented fines, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba told the Assembly as he introduced the draft resolution. The accumulated economic damages of the [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] blockade, [/FONT] totalled $1.1 trillion, based on the price of gold.

More:
https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11574.doc.htm

[EX500rider]

6. So they are all wrong, whats your point?

Blockade definition: the isolating, closing off, or surrounding of a place, as a port, harbor, or city, by hostile ships or troops to prevent entrance or exit.

embargo definition. A governmental restriction on trade for political purposes.

See the difference?

[Mika]

8. Really?

Just googled blockade. Got this ...

block·ade
bläˈkād/
noun
1.
an act or means of sealing off a place to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving.
"there was a blockade of humanitarian aid"
synonyms: siege; More
verb
1.
seal off (a place) to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving.
synonyms: barricade, block off, shut off, seal; More...

[Judi Lynn]

9. So simple to understand, for most people, isn't it?

It's especially easy to understand for all the many countries around the world who protested the embargo as being absolutely contrary to international law, long ago.

It's treading on their own rights to do business with Cuba if they choose, WITHOUT interference from the United States. Clearly the US has been so powerful they just didn't want to go through the trouble they'd be inviting if they tried to do something right about formalizing their protests, not ready to face the ####storm, the backlash a truly large bully could and would hand them.

[EX500rider]

10. Yeah and Cuba is not sealed off, goods arrive by ship and plane every day.

There is a economic US embargo, but no blockade.

[Mika]

11. So, the US has no laws that prevent goods or people from entering or leaving Cuba?

Surely, you jest.
You can hoist your linguistic petard all that you want...

[EX500rider]

12. Not my fault if you can't read the definitions and understand them.

Embargo not the same thing as a blockade.

A blockade would be the US Navy surrounding Cuba and not allowing ANY ships to pass, got it?

A embargo is the US refusing to trade with Cuba.

[Mika]

13. Nothing to do w/reading. Has to do w/interpretation.

You seem to prefer the black/white approach regarding that.

Have a good day.

[EX500rider]

17. Has to do with the actual meanings of words..

A blockade is an effort to cut off supplies, war material or communications from a particular area by force, either in part or totally. A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions, which are legal barriers to trade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

[Judi Lynn]

15. An embargo doesn't have the power to demand that hotels in other countries throw out Cuban people

who are there for formal meetings arranged far in advanced with other people. An embargo won't feature a country enforcing an illegal, immoral, internationally illegal huge fine on foreign banks doing business with Cuba. An embargo won't force the organizers of a contest in another country which has invited children from many countries to enter artwork to withdraw the prize of a camera from a contest winner when the US discovers the boy is from Cuba. (I might add, when Cuban authorities learned what US pressure had done to this innocent kid, stealing his legitimate gift from him, they bought him an equally nice camera to replace it. The US also bought a lot of enemies with that act during George W Bush's stolen occupancy of the Presidency.

THAT IS NOT A LEGIT "EMBARGO," which the other countries of this planet have protested for decades as being internationally ILLEGAL.

It IS your fault that you have decided you are going to butt into every discussion concerning leftist Latin American countries without having taken the time to research the facts, and go with the pre-packaged for mass consumption propaganda, instead. If you want others to create your perception for you, fine, we all have that opportunity since it's stuffed down our throats daily, but the rest of us want to discuss the way things really are. It gets you nowhere to try to interrupt real communication among democratically directed people.

Oh, yeah: An embargo also won't have provisions which allow a country to pitch a man in the slammer for doing business selling water purifiers to Cuban hospitals while working for his employer in Canada, where he was a natural citizen:

Prosecuting Sabzali

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 12:00AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Mar. 20, 2009 9:10PM EDT

The sorry legal case of James Sabzali has taken a turn for the better, al-though it is far from adequately resolved.

Mr. Sabzali, a Canadian, was found guilty last year in Philadelphia of selling water purification units to Cuba, becoming the first Canadian convicted of violating the 42-year U.S. ban against trading with the communist nation. He had been charged with 76 counts of conspiracy and trading with the enemy, and was convicted on 21 counts. At least seven of those occurred while he was living in Canada and working for the Canadian subsidiary of U.S. company Bro-Tech Corp. In 1996, he was promoted to Bro-Tech's head office in Philadelphia, where he was living when charges were laid in 2000.

This week, a U.S. Federal Court judge ordered a new trial for Mr. Sabzali, arguing he did not get a fair trial. Judge Mary McLaughlin said she was "very concerned" by the prosecutor's inflammatory language. For example, she said he should not have repeatedly accused the defence of lying, which served to "stir up the jury."

This is good news for Mr. Sabzali, but not as good as it could have been. Judge McLaughlin could have simply acquitted him of the charges, avoiding the need for a new trial. And her ruling could still be appealed by the prosecutor.

That means Mr. Sabzali still faces the possibility of more than four years in prison for this alleged crime, even though he was a Canadian living in Canada during at least part of the period covered by the charges.[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] He should not have been subject to U.S. laws for that time; this part of the case is an appalling extraterritorial application of U.S. law.[/FONT]

More:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/prosecuting-sabzali/article751288/

[center]~ ~ ~[/center]
More on this nasty attack on a Canadian citizen by the US gov't:

National Post (Canada)
April 4, 2002
Canadian guilty of defying Cuba embargo

Convicted in U.S. court: Many charges were for activities while living in Canada

National Post, with files from news services

PHILADELPHIA - A Canadian businessman could be facing life in prison after an U.S. jury
convicted him yesterday of violating the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba.

James Sabzali, 42, the only foreign national prosecuted for breaking the 40-year Cuban
embargo, was found guilty by a federal jury on 20 counts of violating the 1919 U.S. Trading
With the Enemy Act and one count of conspiracy.

Three of his fellow executives, all U.S. citizens, were also convicted, along with their
Pennsylvania-based chemical company Bro-Tech Corp.

"I'm simply shocked and confused," a shaken Mr. Sabzali said after the jury of seven women
and five men delivered their verdict, ending four days of deliberations.

The unprecedented case, widely regarded as a challenge to Canadian sovereignty, involved
the sale of US$2.1-million worth of water purification chemicals to Cuba.

Federal prosecutors spent five years building a case against Mr. Sabzali, a former Hamilton,
Ont., resident now living in suburban Philadelphia, and the firm for which he was a salesman.

Mr. Sabzali, another Bro-Tech executive and the corporation itself were charged with 76 counts
of violating the Trading With the Enemy Act and one count of conspiracy. Another corporate
officer was charged solely with conspiracy.

The verdict is likely to widen a dispute between the United States and Canada over trade
relations with Communist-ruled Cuba.

Almost half of the charges relate to Mr. Sabzali's activities while he was living in Canada. He
resided in Hamilton from 1992 to 1996, frequently visiting Cuba, before joining the company's
Philadelphia-area head office in 1996.

At least seven of the trade violations of which Mr. Sabzali was convicted occurred while he was
still living in Canada.

Cuba is Canada's largest trading partner in the Caribbean, with trade between the two
countries exceeding US$435-million a year and[font size=6] [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Canadians are specifically prohibited by
Canadian law from complying with the U.S. embargo. [/FONT][/font]

More:
http://latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/canadian.htm

[EX500rider]

16. Actually the US embargo does have all those powers...as you just showed.

It IS your fault that you have decided you are going to butt into every discussion concerning leftist Latin American countries without having taken the time to research the facts

LOL, yes we know, everybody who doesn't agree with you is ignorant of the facts, that MUST be the only possibility..lol..

Really, not my fault you aren't clear on what "blockade" means.

A blockade is an effort to cut off supplies, war material or communications from a particular area by force, either in part or totally. A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions, which are legal barriers to trade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

[Judi Lynn]

18. Wrong. The US has gone beyond its legal authority, as everyone knows. Everyone.

"Might" does NOT make right.

Anyone who worships bullying, who worships sadism, who condones using stolen or coerced power is without moral function.

[Zorro]

19. Sez Fidel's BFF...

Bwahahahahaha!

[EX500rider]

20. The US can conduct it's economic embargo as it see's fit..

"everyone knows" lol, good one!

[Judi Lynn]

7. An affront to our sovereignty

An affront to our sovereignty

Jun Wednesday 8 2016

IN November 2015 the Co-operative Bank closed the bank accounts of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign (CSC), citing changing “risk appetite” and “global regulations” among the reasons.

Now, following a huge campaign by CSC members and affiliates, the bank’s chief executive Niall Booker has finally confirmed in writing that the closure was directly due to “risk” arising from the sanctions imposed by the US government.

This is one of the first times a major corporation has admitted acting as a result of US extraterritorial anti-Cuban blockade legislation.

This means that a British-based bank with a strong “ethical” tradition has closed the accounts of a British-based NGO purely due to an illegal blockade against a small Caribbean island implemented and enforced by the United States.

By adhering to US sanctions, the Co-operative Bank is complying with US extraterritorial legislation — something that is supposedly illegal under British and EU legislation.

CSC has written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry to ask that they make urgent representations to the US government and to the Co-operative Bank to ensure British individuals and companies are free to work with Cuba without being sanctioned by US blockade policies.

The British government should enforce the existing “Protection of Trading Interests” legislation that is designed to ensure that British companies and banks do not carry out US blockade policies and enable them to carry out normal trade and relations between Britain and Cuba.

The all-party parliamentary group on Cuba (APPG) has also taken action on the issue and written directly to the British government.

APPG chair Cat Smith MP said: “It cannot be right that this UK-based organisation (CSC) should be penalised due to United States’ blockade policies when the organisation is doing nothing more than promoting better UK-Cuba relations in accord with UK government policies.”

More:
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6d81-An-affront-to-our-sovereignty#.V_HKHEkVAq0

[Judi Lynn]

14. More than 50 Years Later, the Blockade Against Cuba Survives as Punishment for Achieving Self-Determ

More than 50 Years Later, the[span style="background-color:yellow"] Blockade [/FONT]Against Cuba Survives as Punishment for Achieving Self-Determination
Saturday, January 25, 2014

Matt Peppe

It is the best illustration of the dichotomy between the U.S. government's professed admiration for democracy and its actual imposition of hegemony. The blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba for more than 50 years is one of the most universally accepted issues in the history of international relations: 99% of the world's nations agree that the blockade is illegal and must end. They have voted this way for the last 22 years. Besides the U.S. and its client state Israel, only a small handful of tiny Pacific island nations, former Soviet satellites and dictatorial regimes have ever sided with the U.S.

. . .

Even the U.S. public is against it. Yet, the blockade will not go away. Most Presidents have found ways to strengthen it. Congress even enthusiastically joined in the act, assuming unilateral power to lift sanctions.

The hypocrisy of the U.S. government's insistence on disobeying the will of the entire world and the laws governing it underscores the insanity of this policy. It has been ruled illegal repeatedly by every single international organization that has considered it, and can reasonably said to constitute genocide.

The justifications by U.S. officials have ranged from Cuba's nationalization of American assets after the revolution (legal under international law and carried out without controversy with other European governments); Cuba's relations with the Soviet Union (in violation of Washington's rule that communism is illegal, despite what international law says); Cuba's sponsoring of terrorism (in the form of fighting against colonial dictatorships in Africa); and most recently violations of human rights (for which the U.S. has a very particular definition).

Speaking before the U.N. this past October, Ronald Godard "said his country strongly supported the Cuban people’s desire to design their own future... It was unrealistic to expect Cuba to thrive unless it changed its policies, opened up for competitions, respected international property rights and allowed unfettered access to the Internet, among other things."

Godard fails to mention the fact that the Cuban people already design their own future, having been able to do so for the first time in 1959, despite the interference and continued subversion of the United States itself.

"After hundreds of years of Spanish colonialism, a half century of American hegemony, the Cubans in 1959 were finally able to wrest control of their land for their national interests, not for those of a foreign power," writes Keith Bolender in his book Voices from the Other Side: An Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba. "Through massive economic and political change, isolation, compromise, forced limitations and unrelenting aggression from the United States, the Cuban national identity has been increasingly characterized by the defiance of whatever shortcomings there may be in life, nothing is more significant than self-determination."

The talk of Cuba not "thriving" is also easily refutable. A study in 1970 by the Twentieth Century Fund of New York found that: "In education and public health, no country in Latin America has carried out such ambitious and nationally comprehensive programs. Cuba’s centrally planned economy has done more to integrate the rural and urban sectors (through a national income distribution policy) than the market economies of the other Latin American countries."

More:
http://mattpeppe.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-history-of-illegal-and-immoral.html