The UN General Assembly is set to debate and vote today on a resolution that declares the “necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the
It’s not going to be a moment of suspense or high drama – it has passed 17 years in a row, after all, last year by a 185-3 vote.
The passage of the resolution is not likely to change much in
What’s new is the political symbolism, the statement that the embargo now belongs to President Obama. That is a point the Cuban government likes to make internationally, reminding foreign governments that change has not reached all parts of
A UN report compiling statements from governments around the world and international agencies is here (pdf), and a CNN Spanish interview with
[Update: It was 187-3 with two abstentions;
Cuba has an ambassador in Washington now? That's real news!
ReplyDeleteVecino de NF
For 50 years it has been fidel's embargo against the Cuban people
ReplyDeleteSo easy to see , so hard to understand
lol
as usual, up is down in the world of the gusanos. not hard to understand at all; the americans do their best to destroy, the useful idiots do their best to deny. the evil, you morons, is what the americans are doing illegally to another country, for 50 years and counting.
ReplyDeleteend the embargo, the terrorism, end the siege. the cuban govt, which i could care less about, is right -- it is the american policies that have to change before anything happens.
and yet the gusanos continue to try and convince the rest of us that american actions are moral and right. what utter crap what hypocrisy. but yet, all that will be returned is more of the same, thinking if they shout one more time, lie one more time, we'll all now believe their idiocy. does beating your head against a wall for 50 years make a sound?
so keep trying to convince the rest of americans what you say is true; it is not you losers
US Ambassador Rice says that Cuba can demonstrate its seriousness by (among other things) signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and invte the UN Rapporteurs on human rights and torture.
ReplyDeleteIs she unaware that Cuba has signed the Civil and Political Rights Covenant (and publicly said it intends to have its Parliment ratify soon)? Is she also unaware that Cuba has invited the UN Rappatuer to visit in 2010? Did the US take note of the release of the 2 "political prisoners" that occured last week?
Rice also calls on Cuba to lower the "excessive" charges on remittances. Maybe if the US stopped going after banks that helped Cuba exchange dollars on the international market, Cuba would not have to spend so much money to perform this basic task - and the surcharge could be lowered?
And maybe if the US formally ended its policy of regime change and subversion, Cuba could relax its national security measures?
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteDid you read the Miami Herald Robert Pastor article/interview?
Vecino de NF
Yes I read it. Another wrong-headed account that claims Castro acted in Africa in order to thwart any lifting of the embargo. So wrongheaded it hurts.
ReplyDeleteCuba acted in Angola and Ethiopia for one reason - to counter foreign aggression and Imperialism. Most historians agree Cuban actions in those places was critical. In Angola, the defeat of the South African apartheid mercanary forces forced the end of their attempts to reign in independence. This is one of Cuba's proudest foreign policy achievements - rightly so. To have expected Cuba to give all that up and leave Angola to the racist forces is simply unconscionable - and belies a lack of understanding of Fidel's character.
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteSo Robert Pastor is a rightist when it comes to Cuba-USA relations?
Vecino de NF
I have no idea if Mr. Pastor is right or left. But he is wrong in his analysis of the events of 1977. He (and everyone) ought to read the definitive account of Cuba's involvement in Africa found in Piero Gleijeses' book (Conflicting Missions), based on exclusive access to the Cuban record. He verifies that it was CIA and foreign escalation in Angola and Ethiopia that was the Cuban trigger to act in the defense of Angola and Ethiopia. The discussions with the US simply had nothing to do with their decision making. For the US to assume Cuba would stop opposing Imperialism in Africa in exchange for "normalcy" is where Pastor's and Carter's basic error occurred. To make a jump and assume these wars (that cost thousands of Cuban lives) were merely a way to torpedo US overtures is simply piss-poor analysis.
ReplyDeletePastor is also wrong in suggesting that Raul and Fidel have a different opinions on exchanging Cuban sovereignty for "normalcy."
"Is she unaware that Cuba has signed the Civil and Political Rights Covenant (and publicly said it intends to have its Parliment ratify soon)? Is she also unaware that Cuba has invited the UN Rappatuer to visit in 2010? Did the US take note of the release of the 2 "political prisoners" that occured last week? "
ReplyDeleteLeftside, you are so full of crap it hurts!
BTW, the conventional wisdom in respected US foreign policy circles is that Cuba acted in Africa at the behest of the Soviets. Yet, a 1978 U.S. interagency (NSC) study concluded that Cuba was not involved in Africa "solely or even primarily" because of the Soviets but was motivated by "its activist revolutionary ethos..."
ReplyDeleteWho was (selflessly) spreading freedom in Africa? Who were the ones defending apartheid regimes and pursuing profit?
Perhaps Leftside and Vecino are dating.
ReplyDelete"Hey, Leftside, did you hear about this and that...what do you think?"
"Yes, Vecino, I heard about that...I know what I have to say brightens your day...by the way...you were hogging the blanket last night."
vecino, keep up your best efforts to rewrite history and deny reality, all the while doing your best 'who me' impersonation.
ReplyDeleteyou're entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.
Leftside: "the conventional wisdom in respected US foreign policy circles is that Cuba acted in Africa at the behest of the Soviets."
ReplyDeleteI am shocked (yes, shocked!) to hear such outrageous allegations. Who on earth would ever suspect that Castro's policies had any connection with the Soviet Union!?!?
As we all know, Cuban commumism is all about building schools and hospitals for the grateful Masses. Just like the Soviet Union.
Anonymous October 29, 2009 12:35 AM,
ReplyDelete"Perhaps Leftside and Vecino are dating."
No, Leftside and I are not dating. Only exchange questions and answers for the benefit of the rest of the audience. You are welcome, btw!
Leftside,
In a rare moment I have come to agree with your description of the facts about Cuba's government involvement in the African wars of the 1970s,1980s, and early 1990s although methinks you lay down the ideological propaganda a little too thick for my taste. Africa was the stage where the US and Cuban governments had different and conflicting interests, and where Cuba's actions were not prompted by US agression against Cuba. Fidel Castro chose to get involved in the African wars of the period and sold the idea to the Soviet Union who then provided all the material support required by the Cuban side. Once the Soviet Union decided to stop supporting the Cuban side, and South Africa lost the will to prevail militarily, peace was achieved in Angola and Namibia. The Cuban involvement in Ethiopia was not part of a war of liberation but an ancestral conflict between the different people of the Horn of Africa.
The article/interview of Robert Pastor provides a good glimpse at why US government overtures toward Cuba have failed. The US government wants to advance national interests that conflict with the survival of the Cuban government and therefore the Cuban government goes their own way which antagonizes the US government. The Cuban government is not a victim but an self-defined antagonist and therefore any arguments against the embargo, against hostile actions by the US and US residents, etc. are misleading. They are not the central grievance of the Cuban government against the USA. The central grievance is that it can not survive a compromise with US government interests.
Anonymous October 29, 2009 8:02 AM,
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Vecino de NF
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteThe Piero Gleijeses' book covers the period 1959-1976, right? If that's the case, it does not address the period when Robert Pastor was in the White House working for President Carter. BTW when did Fidel Castro announced publicly to the Cuban people that the government had decided to send troops to Angola and Ethiopia?
Vecino de NF
Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez's rebuttal to the U.S. delegate can be found (in Spanish) in
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cmhw.cu/noticia.asp?auid=10615
That's the CMHW Radio website. I believe the text is also available in cubadebate.cu