NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7069917.stm

The UN General Assembly has voted for a 16th consecutive year to recommend that the US ends its trade embargo on Cuba, imposed more than four decades ago.

The resolution is non-binding and previous resolutions have had no effect on US policy.

The 192-member General Assembly passed the measure by 184 votes to four, with one abstention.

The vote comes shortly after US President George W Bush reaffirmed that the US embargo would remain in place.

The US, Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands voted against repealing the embargo, while Micronesia abstained.

Last year's resolution was passed by 183 votes to four, also with one abstention.

The document calls on the US to end its economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba "as soon as possible", in line with the UN charter and international law.

Cuba's foreign minister Felipe Perez Roque told the General Assembly ahead of the vote that the US blockade had been enforced more fiercely than ever over the last year.

But in a speech last week President Bush said the US would maintain its embargo as long as the government in Cuba keeps a "monopoly" on power.

16 years running!?! I dont know if that says more about the need for UN reform to empower them to force the US to abide by international law and overwhelming global opinion or the tenacious dogedness of repective US governments to extend the middle finger to the globe.

Ah, yes. Screw national sovereignty and force countries to do as others see fit. Sounds like a wonderful plan.

Ah, yes. Screw national sovereignty and force countries to do as others see fit. Sounds like a wonderful plan.

Isn't that exactly what the US are attempting to do to Cuba? :confused:

Ah, yes. Screw national sovereignty and force countries to do as others see fit. Sounds like a wonderful plan.

The U.S. is still doing what it sees fit, so what's the problem?

I personally think the embargo is just plan dumb--Bush dumb, almost.

Ah, yes. Screw national sovereignty and force countries to do as others see fit. Sounds like a wonderful plan.

Ah, if the U.N. can't do anything everyone loves to laugh and jerk off to how powerless and irrelevant it is, but give it some real muscle and people bitch and whine about how it threatens national sovereignty.

Can't please anyone.

What the hell does Palau have to gain from voting against it? Cuba stealing the next episode of Survivor?

The blockade against Cuba should be ended, not the least because it's entirely pointless, hypocritical, and denies US companies access to a very lucrative market. It's also a massive waste of time and money enforcing something against a nation that poses no threat to the US and hasn't since 1963.

I imagine we'd lift the blockade if Cuba had a lot of oil, though, just like our buddies in Saudi Arabia. Hell, the Saudis directly helped murder 3,000 Americans 6 years ago and they still not only get away with it scot-free but also get to purchase $34 billion of weapons from us. Not that a blockade against Saudi Arabia would be a good idea, but it's the fact that it so aptly demonstrates the outright hypocrisy of continuing the Cuban blockade.

What the hell does Palau have to gain from voting against it? Cuba stealing the next episode of Survivor?

The blockade against Cuba should be ended, not the least because it's entirely pointless, hypocritical, and denies US companies access to a very lucrative market. It's also a massive waste of time and money enforcing something against a nation that poses no threat to the US and hasn't since 1963.

I imagine we'd lift the blockade if Cuba had a lot of oil, though, just like our buddies in Saudi Arabia. Hell, the Saudis directly helped murder 3,000 Americans 6 years ago and they still not only get away with it scot-free but also get to purchase $34 billion of weapons from us. Not that a blockade against Saudi Arabia would be a good idea, but it's the fact that it so aptly demonstrates the outright hypocrisy of continuing the Cuban blockade.

Look at North Korea and Burma as more examples. Alienating and isolating an oppressive regime only gives the regime better control over its populace. Why else would China try to censor internet access?

Shouldn't a nation have the right to trade (or not to trade) with anyone it wants?

But in a speech last week President Bush said the US would maintain its embargo as long as the government in Cuba keeps a "monopoly" on power.
You mean like China, oh whoops, made you look like a hypocrite. The only reason that the embargo still exists is that the Cuban exiles in Florida are a major voting block.

The only reason that the embargo still exists is that the Cuban exiles in Florida are a major voting block.

I must concur with this statement.

Look at North Korea and Burma as more examples. Alienating and isolating an oppressive regime only gives the regime better control over its populace. Why else would China try to censor internet access?

Not only that, but it also creates a fortress mentality that makes it easy both to explain away economic problems and poverty as well as to make it look like their nation is the good guy being oppressed by a superpower state for not following their policies.

The United States, in line with it's founding Consitutional obligations and inherent chairmanship of liberty and freedom for all nations, is simply engaging in nonviolent protest of a tyrannical regime's oppressive control over its people.

Grant it, there are plenty of other nations in which such an act would be more suitable and effective against, however that is neither here nor there.

The simple truth is that the United States is acting in terms that are considered acceptable by the United Nations in that no troops or military actions have been taken towards the people or government of Cuba.

The United States, and any other sovereign nation within or without the United Nations has an inherent right to protest against a government in which it deems undemocratic.

There are far, far more terrible and devestating ways for the United States to exhibit its distaste of the Cuban government than mere economic sanctions..........

There are far, far more terrible and devestating ways for the United States to exhibit its distaste of the Cuban government than mere economic sanctions..........

Like lifting the blockade and forcing Cuba to face the reality that capitalism trounces its system in all aspects. Personally, that's my favorite way of dismantling these kinds of regimes, even if it's a gradual process at best.

Like lifting the blockade and forcing Cuba to face the reality that capitalism trounces its system in all aspects. Personally, that's my favorite way of dismantling these kinds of regimes, even if it's a gradual process at best.

The United States is not just displeased with Cuba's economic system, but with its political system as well (which is where all grievances originate in this particular situation). Lifting blockades in an attempt to flop the Cuban economy will not bring evolution to the government in terms of political freedom, but will merely alter their economic structure.

Like lifting the blockade and forcing Cuba to face the reality that capitalism trounces its system in all aspects. Personally, that's my favorite way of dismantling these kinds of regimes, even if it's a gradual process at best.

No, no. They can't do that. If they did, they'd have to admit that the embargo was a bad idea to begin with. And they can't have that. Reality must submit to the superegos of the bloated head disease sufferers.

No, no. They can't do that. If they did, they'd have to admit that the embargo was a bad idea to begin with. And they can't have that. Reality must submit to the superegos of the bloated head disease sufferers.

How is the embargo a bad idea?

And define bad idea please.

Look at North Korea and Burma as more examples. Alienating and isolating an oppressive regime only gives the regime better control over its populace. Why else would China try to censor internet access?

While I am opposed to US blockades on Cuba as they have clearly done nothing to hamper Castro's regime, I also oppose the membership of Myanmar within ASEAN. Allowing free trade with Myanmar has not served the interests of the Burmese people at all, just the interests of the junta and Thai businesses. I think the main problem is ensuring the universality of the sanctions - ASEAN don't want to prevent their businesses from trading with Myanmar because there are plenty of Indian and Chinese businesses waiting to take their place.

I agree that the embargo is ridiculous, but it's always hilarious to see the hypocrisy of the UN when it comes to leftist dictatorships.

Anyone remember how apartheid South Africa was treated by all these nations that are so concerned about Cuba, Iran and North Korea? Among many others in the past. South Africa of course was an economic powerhouse and more free than 90+% of the nations that condemned it.

When's the last time that the UN spoke against Zimbabwe? It's just such a joke.

Shouldn't a nation have the right to trade (or not to trade) with anyone it wants?

Well, it depends. When you say nation that includes lots of private businesses and people, so the government telling them not to is not really those people "not wanting" to but being strictly prohibited by the government, surely conservatives would have a problem with this? And second yes they can but that doesn't make it a good idea.

How is the embargo a bad idea?

And define bad idea please.

Because it serves no practical purpose. It's a holdover from the Cold War that has no reason for it's continuation beyond feeding the ego's of the Cuban voting bloc in Florida.

The enduring embargo seems pretty irrational. So much so, that I have always thought there must be something more behind it. It is my theory that Castro had JFK killed and the US government covered it up to prevent a war with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Perhaps that's why the U.S. will never trade with Cuba until Castro is dead.

How is the embargo a bad idea?

Its bad because it A. Hurts mainly the poor majority,the relatively wealthy elite still get luxury goods, and B. With trade Cuba will become more capitalistic economically which will hopefully force the communists to crumble eventually.

The United States is not just displeased with Cuba's economic system, but with its political system as well (which is where all grievances originate in this particular situation). Lifting blockades in an attempt to flop the Cuban economy will not bring evolution to the government in terms of political freedom, but will merely alter their economic structure.

The blockade hasn't done a thing but keep that government in power and its people impoverished. The simple truth is, capitalism brings freedom and keeps freedom in place. People can't be economically free unless they have a free political process and civil rights as well; otherwise, a big chunk of the economy and economic policy are going to be cut off and economic development will not occur. The thing is, the capitalist economic system is good at enabling people to take control of their own destiny and their own decisions, which in turn lead them to question their government and the decisions it makes.

It's not a coincidence that all of the world's freest, wealthiest, happiest and most democratic states are free-market economies. Even China has made progress on human rights since its move towards capitalism, and that push is getting stronger with each year.

The easy and simple answer is that the US won't lift the embargo until Castro is dead, and not a day before.

The enduring embargo seems pretty irrational. So much so, that I have always thought there must be something more behind it. It is my theory that Castro had JFK killed and the US government covered it up to prevent a war with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Perhaps that's why the U.S. will never trade with Cuba until Castro is dead.

I've always heard that it's part of a plot to keep cigar quality up :). No, seriously. By keeping a lid on demand, there won't be an expansion of the market, and production increases won't occur, thus maintaining a level of quality equal to that of the nineteen-fifties.

After all, Kennedy ordered the purchase of thousands of Cuban cigars before for the embargo went into full effect.

Well, the United States shouldn't even be in the UN because it undermines American sovereignty and because the US government keeps going to war to satisfy the UN and its idiotic resolutions (the left, both in the US and in Europe, agitated for a War on Iraq for years to satisfy UN resolutions, then bailed as soon as the buffoon in Washington got involved).

However, the US shouldn't have trade sanctions either, under any circumstances, as they merely amount to an act of economic war. All government, if it exists at all, should be funded solely on a voluntary voting tax (Anarcho-Capitalism is the best possible society, as has been proven in theory by Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and in practice in medieval Ireland and Iceland, as well as in the not so Wild West).

If the US would just get rid of the idiotic embargo against Cuba, they could unleash the laws of economics on Cuba to force the implementation of much-needed reforms (though, of course, Cuba needs to adopt Anarcho-Capitalism in the long run, as does every country).

Well, the United States shouldn't even be in the UN because it undermines American sovereignty and because the US government keeps going to war to satisfy the UN and its idiotic resolutions (the left, both in the US and in Europe, agitated for a War on Iraq for years to satisfy UN resolutions, then bailed as soon as the buffoon in Washington got involved).

Since when do anarchists believe in the sovereignty of nations?

I'm not trying to be an a** here, but people keep using blockade and embargo interchangeably when they are two very different things.

The Cuban governmen trades with Canada,The Eu, Mexico, Venezuela and most nations of the world including buying U.S. agricultural products on a COD basis despite the remaining embargo sanctions, a one nation alone US embargo is a failed policy even though they have tried to include most western and European nations, but trade, tourists, foreign investments, diplomatic relations and dialogue with the Cuban government under Fidel is a failed policy also, I would say its a failed policy under Raul as well Fidel dead or alive, the Cuban government has told the EU, the world and the Cuban people its own citizens over and over again, the Revolution is forever no political, economic or social changes, just ask Oswaldo Paya what happend to and his Varela project according to the Cuban government over 95 % percent of all Cuban voters approved a constitutional amendment petition to declare Cuba's political, economic and social system irrevocable, what more proof does the European Union and the world need to realize the Cuban government is a dictatorship that wont change through trade, tourists, foreign investments, diplomatic relations and dialogue.

what more proof does the European Union and the world need to realize the Cuban government is a dictatorship that wont change through trade, tourists, foreign investments, diplomatic relations and dialogue.

And somehow you think an embargo would work? May I point you towards North Korea? A country with extremely few nations trading towards it?

Ahh, but perhaps you hate your countrymen. Or perhaps you just hate Fidel Castro. And you hate him so much, you care not that your desired actions don't really hurt him, but your countrymen. That's why you would rather squeeze the nation tighter.

Do tell though. Did you ever actually grow up in Cuba, or were you brought up in Florida listening to the stories told by your parents and relatives of it?

The enduring embargo seems pretty irrational. So much so, that I have always thought there must be something more behind it. It is my theory that Castro had JFK killed and the US government covered it up to prevent a war with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Perhaps that's why the U.S. will never trade with Cuba until Castro is dead.


That makes much more sense than it ought to...

...I always felt it was because Castro asked Krushchev to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on America.

Kennedy and Krushchev did everything they could to avoid a nuclear scenario, and both made concessions unpopular within their respsective governments to end the crisis.

Castro, however, was calling for the deaths of millions in America, Russia, and elsewhere...simply to keep power to himself.

Why should we trade with a nation run by a man who so casually advocated for the deaths of millions of our citizens?

In an age of propaganda and pseudo-democracy, the strongest opponents of imperial power are subject to the most ferocious attacks. One result of this is that many of the firmly held opinions about democracy in Cuba and in the United States of America bear an inverse relationship to relevant knowledge. As the Canadian scientist William Osler said, “the greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism”.

The US has run a powerful and illegal economic blockade against Cuba for almost 50 years, after its investment privileges were withdrawn. It now runs propaganda suggesting that the Cuban people need US-styled “democracy”. Well let’s look at democracy in both countries, including civil rights and participatory democracy, as well as representative democracy.

In representative democracy, Cuba is clearly ahead. Cubans have open elections for their National Assembly (as well as their provincial and local assemblies); this assembly then elects the ministers, including a president of the Council of Ministers.
Advertisement

In the US, there is a directly elected Congress and a president indirectly elected through electoral colleges. This president of state then appoints ministers. Yet a majority of the elected US Congress cannot block many presidential “prerogatives”, including the waging of war.

So even when the majority of the population and the majority of the Congress oppose a war, the president can still wage it. In the US, then, the elected assembly does not really rule.

In Cuba, the Constitution (Art 12) repudiates wars of aggression and conquest, and all ministers are accountable to the elected National Assembly. The president of Cuba’s Council of Ministers (falsely called a “dictator” by the imperial US president) is not above the National Assembly and has no power to “veto” a law passed by his country’s National Assembly. In the US, the president can and does veto Congressional laws.

In the US, eligibility for election to office depends on subscription to one of two giant parties and substantial corporate sponsorship.

In Cuba, there are no electoral parties and there is no corporate sponsorship. The Cuban Communist Party is constitutionally recognised to promote socialist debate and policy, but has no electoral role. Citizens need not be CCP members to be elected, and many are not. National Assembly members (whether they belong to the CCP or not) do not represent any party, but rather their constituencies. The Cuban system bans foreign powers from funding electoral representatives or parties. The US Government, accustomed to foreign intervention, claims this law is “undemocratic”.

In the US, millions of people are excluded from voting, either because they have some criminal conviction or they belong to one or other group of second class citizens (for example, Puerto Ricans, who pay tax but have no representative in Congress).

In Cuba, very few are excluded from voting, and well over 90 per cent of the adult population (those over 16 years of age) actually do vote at each election. In the US, voter participation is often around 50 per cent.

While there are constitutional civil rights in both countries, these rights are stronger under the Cuban system. Cuban citizens have the constitutional right to employment, food, free education, free health care, housing (including family inheritance), political participation, freedom of expression, personal property and freedom of religion. The Cuban state is constitutionally bound to guarantee these rights.

US citizens have the right to freedom of speech, unlimited private property and the right to carry arms. They also have the right to participate in a “market” where their education, health and general well-being is often a gamble.

By the constitution, no-one in Cuba can be imprisoned without proper charges, a trial, and the right to a defence (Art 59). Cuba’s “political prisoners” are those who have been convicted of taking money to help overthrow the constitutional system.

By contrast, in the US, thousands of people are held without charge or trial, including several hundred in the illegally occupied section of Cuba, at Guantanamo Bay. The rate of imprisonment in the US, which has more than two million prisoners, is far higher than in Cuba (or indeed any other country). African-Americans are massively over-represented in US jails. Prisoners in the US lose many of their civil rights; prisoners in Cuba keep most of their civil rights.

Institutionalised racial discrimination persisted in the US well into the 1960s. Even today, the gap between formal and effective rights is very great in the US, because there are so few social guarantees.

Cuba, on the other hand, has made great efforts to overcome the denial of effective rights on racial grounds. The Cuban guarantees of universal and free education, health care and social security have proven powerful and effective tools against social marginalisation. Educational and health standards in Cuba are similar to, and in some respects better than, those of the US. This is despite the US having an average per capita income almost ten times higher than Cuba. The US has permanent wealth and poverty. Cuba shares its ups and downs.

In the US “freedom of speech” means that a handful of private corporations dominate the mass media.

In Cuba, the media (television, radio, magazines, newspapers) are all run by public bodies or community organisations. No private individual or investment group can capture or dominate public debate in Cuba. Nor is there mind numbing, commercial advertising.

In the US mass communications are dominated by consumerism and celebrity trivia; politics is about individuals seeking public office. In Cuba, mass communications are dominated by education and cultural programs; politics is about co-ordinated social responses to social problems.

Cuba does not use state power to intervene in the affairs of others or to push international propaganda, but rather sends doctors to more than 60 countries to assist communities which have no medical services. This internationalism, recognised by the World Health Organization, contrasts with US interventionism.

The US government maintains state-propaganda stations (for example, Voice of America, Radio Marti), funds opposition political groups (through the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department, USAID and the CIA) as well as funding pro-US academic centres and think tanks around the world.

Cuba’s human rights record is far better than that of the US. Amnesty International said the US in 2006 had “thousands of detainees … without charge or trial … deaths in custody, torture and ill-treatment … disappearances ... failure to hold officials at the highest levels accountable … [for] war crimes or crimes against humanity”. Within the US “sixty-one people died after being struck by police tasers … [and] 60 people were executed”. The Amnesty report did not address the thousands killed and maimed in the illegal occupation of Iraq.

By contrast, Amnesty’s criticism of Cuba in 2006 was mild. There were some “restrictions on freedom of expression, association and movement … nearly 70 prisoners of conscience … the government attempted to suppress private entrepreneurship. More than 30 prisoners remained on death row [but] no one was executed.”

Amnesty (whose US branch is responsible for reports on Cuba) did not note that the “seventy prisoners of conscience” had been charged and convicted of the specific offences of taking money from a foreign power to seek the overthrow of the Cuban constitutional system. Most were arrested in 2003, during a wave of hijackings, and many have since been released.

The US State Department - a fierce ideological opponent of Cuba - was forced to acknowledge in 2004 that Cuba had “no political killings ... or politically motivated disappearances", no religious repression, little discrimination, compulsory and free schooling, a universal health system, substantial artistic freedom, and no reports of torture. This contrasts strongly with the death squads and torture of dictatorial regimes trained and supported by the US throughout Latin America, for example in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia.

Cuban moves against homophobia and in support of gay rights have been more effective than those in the US. There is greater tolerance of sexual diversity in Cuba than in most Latin American countries and Churches which sustain such discrimination have less political influence in Cuba than in the US.

Cuba’s Centre for National Sex Education (CENESEX) since 1989 has pushed sexual tolerance, including acceptance of and support for trans-sexuals. Effective education campaigns and testing has meant that Cuba has the lowest HIV infection rate in the Caribbean region, lower than the US. Since 2001 every HIV positive Cuban has had free access to highly active anti retroviral treatment (HAART). The US has developed strong HIV-AIDS programs, as a result of pressure group lobbying, but access to health services is not guaranteed.

US backed, Cuban exile “pro-democracy” activists are mostly terrorists, as far as Cubans are concerned. For example in March 2007 the Madrid Municipal Government awarded Cuban exile Carlos Alberto Montaner the “Tolerance Prize” for his writings on Cuba. Yet Montaner is a European-resident fugitive from Cuban justice who has been on the CIA payroll for many years. He is wanted in Cuba for bombings carried out in Cuba, many years ago, and has close links to the Miami-based Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), which openly backs terrorist attacks on Cuba.

The Cuban Government has not moved against the celebrated “pro democracy” activist Osvaldo Payá, who was awarded the Andrei Sakharov Prize in 2002 for “Freedom of Thought” following his creation of the “Varela Project”, essentially a petition for small business rights. However Cuban television in December 2005 pointed out that Payá was receiving $1,000 a session for his classes on managing a US-backed “transition” in Cuba, held at the US Office of Interests in Havana. This is a clear breach of Cuban law, but Payá has not been arrested.

In 2005 Australian journalist Paul McGeough feted another CANF and Miami-backed “pro-democracy” activist, Raul Rivero. McGeough asserted that Rivero’s arrest in 2003 “revived memories of the worst Soviet human rights abuses” and claimed that “Rivero's crime was twofold - possession of a typewriter, and a will to dream”. McGeough did not point out that Rivero was convicted of receiving money from the US Office of Interests and the CANF, as part of quite explicit plans to overthrow the constitution and install a foreign-backed regime. Such activity is a crime in every country.

The most notorious US-backed “pro democracy activist” is Luis Posada Carriles, currently held in the US on immigration offences. The US refuses to extradite Posada to Venezuela, where he is wanted for the 1976 bombing of a Cuba passenger plane, which killed 73 civilians. Posada publicly confessed (in the US) to the bombings of Cuban tourist hotels in 1997, but was never charged. He was arrested and convicted over an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro in Panama in 2000, but was pardoned and released in 2004 by outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso, a US ally. The US government, in the middle of its self-proclaimed “war on terrorism”, refuses to consider Posada a terrorist. Such is the US support for democracy in Cuba.

The US government funds a number of “civil society”, “pro-democracy” and human rights groups, to support the US image of the world. For example, the France-based group Reporters without Borders, backed by the US National Endowment for Democracy, portrays Cuba as the single worst violator of “press freedom” in the Americas. However the International News Safety Institute notes that while no journalists were killed carrying out their work in Cuba over 1996-2006, 21 were killed in the USA, most of them murdered. (Let’s put to one side the 72 others killed in Colombia, 31 in Mexico, 27 in Brazil, 16 in Peru, 13 in Guatemala, and so on.)

On participatory democracy, the US has very poor credentials. Economic policy is regarded either as “technical”, to be managed by experts, or a province of the private corporations that dominate US social and political life. Consequently there are few debates or participatory initiatives on issues of major public concern, such as health care, access to education and military spending.

In Cuba, by contrast, there are substantial debates on public policy issues, through the elected assemblies and social organisations. For example, in Cuba’s economic crisis of the 1990s, 18 months were spent debating the introduction of major economic changes such as introducing regulated foreign investment, the development of mass tourism, adjustments to services and taxes, preservation of free health care and education.

In the US, “structural adjustment” was a formula developed by the private banks, adopted at home and enforced in debtor countries. This “technical” formula, comprising privatisation, high interest rates, cuts to social services, user pays regimes, privileges for private investors and exporters, is presented as a “fait accompli”. There is no public inclusion in a policy debate, so communities are forced to react defensively to this “technical” economic policy.

There is one final, important reason why the US cannot be a democracy. An imperial ambition drives it to dominate, invade and exploit the resources of other countries. US “defence forces” are almost exclusively deployed abroad and current US “national security” policy contemplates pre-emptive military strikes on more than sixty countries.

Like other imperial ventures, US ambitions are pursued on behalf of a small clique of private investors, at the expense of millions of poor and marginalised people within the US. Yet as the US writer Gore Vidal has pointed out, no imperial project can be mounted in a genuine democracy, or a genuine republic.

Cuba, on the other hand, has never invaded another country. It has only used its defence forces to defend its own people or to support others under attack, such as defending the Angolan and Namibian people from the apartheid South African army, in the 1980s.

Cuba has used its world class health sector to assist other countries. While the US sends thousands of troops to other countries, Cuba sends thousands of doctors. Further, more than 20,000 foreign students are studying medicine in Cuba, on fully-funded Cuban scholarships. This includes nearly 100 US students. This is one more reason why, if the word is to have any meaning, Cuba is a democracy and the US is not.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5609

Deplorable as Castro's regime is, I'm all in favor of restoring diplomatic ties, ending the embargo, and trading with Cuba.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5609

LOL! "Support others under attack," like the Eritreans who were fighting for their independence from Ethiopia?

What the hell does Palau have to gain from voting against it? Cuba stealing the next episode of Survivor?


Palau, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia are all former colonies of the United States, and heavily dependent on US aid.

Micronesia tends to abstain rather than choose between its principles and its economic need to suck up to the US, but Palau and the Marshalls just go: "See, Mr. Bush, we supported you! Now send us some goodies, please?".

I'm still amazed that Bush can get away with the inherent hypocrisy of claiming the moral highground while cosying up to such dictators as Hu Jintao and the House of Saud. I suppose that's just the blind kneejerk nationalism of his supporters. Or possibly sheer ignorance. Cuba is far less of a restrictive society than a great many of George's pals, but *gasp* it refuses to conform to the One True Way of the market economy! Such impudence clearly cannot be tolerated.

Bush doesn't give a damn whether a country is a democracy or not. Not a damn. The only factor is whether it's willing to trade with the US and be a diplomatic ally. Hence such shining beacons of democracy and human rights as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Tonga being welcomed with open arms into the Coalition of the Willing, or Bush's close family friendship with the House of Saud. It reeks of hypocrisy so much, I'm surprised he can get away with it.

Shouldn't a nation have the right to trade (or not to trade) with anyone it wants?

thats fine, the actual issue here is that the US will then punish any non-American firm that trades with Cuba. For example a ship or plane that transports goods into Cuba will be barred from entering the US for a period.

You can do what you like, but when you try to coerce other nations with no problem with Cuba, you cross a line, and that is what the UN are eseentially saying.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5609
...

That was such utter shite...

I mean, for starters, it's a one party state. And as to the whole Guantanimo thing - it's not by any means illegally held land, it's was leased to the US and they're using it. For illegal things, yes, but the land itself is legit...

*edits*

Oh, hate the embargo, though. No need.

16 years in a row?
lulz, silly UN!

There is little or no point in enforcing the blockade of Cuba or holding on to the embargo. The only thing it can accomplish is the sending of the message that Cuba and its dictatorship is raising objections with the government of the United States.

I would find the embargo useless in all regards after Fidel Castro dies and his brother dies.

Communism will not last very long in Cuba unless another man like Castro come to power there.

Er... doubtful. Cuba is kinda set up into regional districts, each with more or less control over itself. Castro may be the "Big Guy", but the system in place really doesn't need him. He's more of a figure head, if anything, these days.

By Carl Geiser

Some people are dubious about the feasibility of a society based on cooperation instead of competition envisaged in my concept of an "80% Party." They point out that all governments based on cooperation became corrupt, dictatorial, inefficient, and alienated their citizens enough to bring about their downfall.

The reason given for the blockade of Cuba is to "restore democracy," but there are huge differences in U.S. and Cuban democracy.

Many forms of democracy have existed in the past, starting with the Greeks, and many forms still exist today. U.S. democracy has changed greatly from 1789, when slaves, women, landless men and indentured servants could not vote. As circumstances changed, we have amended the Constitution 27 times to meet the new needs.

Since 1789, certain rights have not changed: the rights to own land and companies, to hire and fire people and pay them less than the value they produce, are guaranteed by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Administration, the army and the police. But our right to a job, a home, medical care, education beyond high school, and a living wage, are not guaranteed.

Cuba has reversed this. In Cuba you cannot buy land, start up private corporations, or hire others to work for you. You are guaranteed a job or unemployment pay, a home, free medical care, and education beyond high school. Even though Cuba is a Third World country with an annual per capita domestic product of about $1700 compared to our $22,000, it does what we cannot do because it distributes the wealth and income it has more rationally.

We have the right to get rich here, though few do. In Cuba, no one can become rich. The minimum wage is 100 pesos a month, the maximum 800. Cuba has set up economic, political, social and cultural structures which reward the individual for working for the common good by modest economic incentives, but more importantly, by the friendship and admiration of those with whom you work, the dignity of citizenship in a sovereign Cuba, a fair share of whatever Cuba produces, and the right to take part in making government and management decisions. Why have the "socialist societies" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe been overthrown by their own people? Because their leaders became corrupt, were dictatorial, and practiced nepotism leading to incompetence and mismanagement. They alienated people and denied them control over their government's actions.

Cuba has found a way, not without some difficulty, to have an honest and efficient government guaranteed by the close control people exercise over it. At the base of Cuba's democracy are the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR). They were formed by the Cuban people at President Castro's suggestion after counterrevolutionaries threw four bombs into a huge crowd during a 1960 speech.

Each square block elects its own CDR. I met with such a committee in 1990. All legislative changes which affect all Cubans must be submitted for review by the committees and they have three months to return their comments. One member of the CDR was the secretary who kept records of meetings; another was the treasurer who collected 25 centimos from each family every month for block activities; another person was in charge of security and arranged for two people to walk around the block between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. to help anyone in trouble and to prevent anyone from causing trouble; another young woman was the district CDR representative.

Another woman turned out to be the doctor for the block. The people in the block had built a two-story house for her with material supplied by the government. She had a medical history on everyone in the neighborhood, made house calls, and practiced preventative medicine; her income did not depend on people getting sick because she received a fixed salary paid by the government. A small, Afro-Cuban woman was the CDR chairperson. She coordinated the work of the Committee and had a Cuban flag in front of the house. Why? So the police could find her. They couldn't arrest anyone in the block without the Committee's permission. No Stalin could arise in Cuba.

And this is just the beginning of democracy in Cuba.
Cuba's three-stage electoral system

In 1976, the Committees in Defense of the Revolution were supplemented by setting up election districts -- about 500 voters in each -- to elect a delegate to the district People Power Assembly (PPA). The district PPA then elected a delegate to the provincial PPA, which in turn elected a delegate to the national PPA. In 1991, in order to involve the people more directly in government, the national PPA set up a commission to find the best way to do this. In 1992, a draft of the new electoral procedure was sent to all CDRs for their comments and millions of Cubans discussed the procedure. The result was a new three-stage electoral procedure.

The first stage, as before, was local elections within the 13,685 election districts to choose a district delegate. Anyone 16 or older could vote. No less than two nor more than eight candidates were to be nominated and the winner had to receive over 50 percent of the votes. Several hundred districts had to have a runoff election a week later because no one had received over 50 percent.

The second stage was the formation of district electoral commissions made up of representatives from different organizations (women's groups, labor, students, farmers, churches, sports, etc.) These representatives then arranged meetings in their factories, institutions and organizations to nominate individuals they thought would serve the common good in its provincial and national PPA. More than 1,600,000 people took part in these meetings. The district PPA had the right to nominate up to half of the candidates and the rest were chosen by the electoral commission from the names submitted for the provincial and national PPA.

A ballot was then prepared with no provision for a write-in candidate. Voters had three choices: 1) to deface their ballot or leave it blank; 2) to vote for one or some of the candidates, and; 3) to vote for the entire slate and thereby show the whole-hearted support for the Revolution. The candidates spent no money, nor did they campaign separately; their names and biographies were published and they all appeared at public meetings. There was no party slate.

The third stage of the new electoral procedure was a secret ballot held on February 24, 1993. The voter turnout was more than 99 percent. The poll watchers were high school students. Seven percent, about a half million voters, defaced or left their ballots blank, indicating that they opposed the Revolution. Another seven percent voted for less than the full slate, while 85 percent voted for the entire slate. The new 500-member national PPA has 115 women, 11 lawyers, two clergymen, and 83 percent had not held the office previously. District, provincial and national delegates receive no perks and have to live off the wages their factory or institution pays them.

The Cuban government does no have a separation of powers as we do. The national PPA has all powers -- legislative, administrative and judicial. It sets the general policy and elects an executive council to carry it out. The council sets up commissions for various functions, such as a judicial commission to oversee all of the courts. (In Cuba, you have to study to be a judge just like becoming an engineer.)

An illustration of how the national PPA involves the people in decision-making may be seen by how it tackled three of Cuba's problems. While Cuba was trading with the Soviet Union, a large quantity of consumer goods were imported. When this stopped, wages and pensions were not reduced, resulting in Cubans accumulating 11 billion pesos, with little to buy, and an 11 billion peso national debt. A second problem exists because the U.S. dollar is now an official currency. Some people have access to dollars and some do not. Some, such as taxi drivers and hotel workers, receive dollars from tips; other people receive dollars from relatives in the United States; and others, such as artists and farmers, can sell their goods on the market. And then there is the so-called "black market," another source of dollars. Those who have access to dollars can buy goods in the dollar stores that are unavailable to the majority. It has been estimated that 30 percent of the population has access to dollars while the rest do not. And a third problem is the irritation felt by those who do not have access to dollars and cannot use the tourist facilities.

The national PPA asked all factories and institutions to hold conventions to discuss what to do about these problems and any others that needed to be discussed. The response was that 80,000 conventions sent in their suggestions.
People Power Assembly in action

The first result of analyzing the suggestions was a decree-law for the confiscation of personal funds obtained illegally. That was followed by fees for cultural and sports events and for meals previously free. Another law provided for the taxation of funds received from abroad and from tourists. These measures reduced the 11 billion peso national debt by 10 percent in the first four months.

To provide tourist facilities, the government Cubanacan Tourist Agency set aside half of its rooms to be paid for with pesos. Since not everyone could be accommodated, rooms will be provided for newlyweds and those individuals chosen by their colleagues for having worked the hardest for the common good.

Is this democracy? Certainly it is the opposite of what we have. Do these procedures serve the interests of the majority? They certainly do. They involve Cubans in the decision-making process to an extent not conceived of in the United States. This is what makes it possible for Cuba to survive the very severe hardships caused by the collapse of the former socialist countries and the tightened U.S. blockade.

Does our democracy protect the interests of the majority? It protects the interests of the top 20 percent. Since 1980 the real family income has declined rapidly for the bottom 80 percent. Our democracy, which spent close to a half billion dollars to fill offices in the last election, gives us a government bought by those with money. True, we have majority rule and allow third parties. But the result has been a government which always served to generate and protect a growing disparity in income. Nevertheless, until recently most people expected their children to live a better life than they did. Since 1980 the real income of the 80 percent has been dropping while the real income of the 20 percent has been increasing.

There is a world of difference between majority rule that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rest and majority rule that serves the interests of the majority. Most of the world's 368 billionaires, whose wealth equals that of the poorest 2,800,000,000 , live where majority rule works on their behalf; if their rule is threatened, they replace it with dictatorship. Let us beware. U.S. citizens are free to travel to Cuba, but if you spend money there, the sentence can be a $250,000 fine and 10 years in the slammer, a heavy price to learn what is going on there. Hundreds of U.S. citizens have openly defied the law without being prosecuted. The authorities may realize it might be difficult to get a jury to convict. After all, the United Nations General Assembly has voted to condemn the U.S. blockade.

I am not advocating a blind adoption of Cuban procedures for the U.S. We will have to find our own way. The organizing of the "80% Party" could be a peaceful way of changing to a democratic rule that serves the interests of the majority. The Oklahoma City bombing and formation of armed militias should be a warning to us that we have little time to lose, for some Americans whose living standards are falling are thinking of more violent means to bring about change. We must bring them into the 80% Party.

Cuba's first priority is growing food. Until 1990, Cuba had imported much of its food in exchange for sugar. With the collapse of the socialist countries in Europe and the effects of the U.S. blockade, it can no longer do so. The investment in educating agricultural scientists and setting up agricultural institutes in the 1980s is paying off now. They are replacing chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer and crop rotation, pesticides with biological controls, outdated technology with state-of-the-art technology appropriate to the season, area and crop. They are also introducing biological control of plant diseases and are producing micorrhizae to aid plant root uptake of mineral nutrients, the first country known to do so. Cuba is showing the way we and the rest of the world will have to grow our food without polluting our soil, air and water. We will have to find our own way to rule in the interest of the majority if we are to eliminate from our nation increasing poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, crime, drugs, unemployment, racial and ethnic discrimination. And we don't have much time to do it. Scientists tell us that if we continue on the present course, the cost will be tremendous. The future of our planet is at stake.
http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html

http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html

Lies! Our government tells us that Cuba is a dictatorship where little children get staked just for looking at Castro! If our government tells us that, it must be true!

I'm not very knowledgable about U.S.-Cuban relations, but isn't the blockade only on weaponry? Doesn't the US let food and other supplies in?

I'm not very knowledgable about U.S.-Cuban relations, but isn't the blockade only on weaponry? Doesn't the US let food and other supplies in?

It's not a blockade, period.

Yet they tried to use one UN resolution to justify the invasion of Iraq...