Speaking in Spanish, U.S. representative Oliver Garcia, a State Department adviser and former ambassador to Nicaragua, told the assembly in diplomatic terms that U.S. policy towards Cuba is none of the UN’s business. “Relations between the United States and Cuba is a bilateral issue and should not be brought before this assembly,” Garcia said. He claimed that Washington “does not interfere with Cuba’s trade with other countries.”

Speaking just before the vote, Cuban foreign minister Felipe Pérez Roque explained that the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992—also known as the Torricelli Act—prohibits subsidiaries of U.S. companies in other countries from carrying out commercial transactions with Cuba. The embargo was further tightened by the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, frequently referred to as the Helms-Burton law after its principal sponsors in Congress, which was passed under the Clinton administration.

Pérez Roque cited examples of how these laws are used by Washington to do what Garcia claimed his government is not carrying out. He said the Canadian company Picker was not allowed to sell X-ray equipment to Cuba because it is a subsidiary of a U.S. company. The French company Bull was unable to complete the sale of ATM machines to Havana because it was purchased in the process by the U.S. company Diebold. And Cuba can no longer purchase heat resistant bricks used in the production of cement because the Mexican company Refractarios Mexicanos was acquired by the U.S. company Harbison Walker Refractories.

A number of representatives of countries that spoke in the debate—including Vietnam, Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Sudan—explained that their countries were or are now the target of sanctions by Washington. “As a nation that has suffered from such blockades, Vietnam extends its full solidarity to the people of Cuba in voting for this resolution,” said the Vietnamese representative.

“The U.S. justifies its embargo against Cuba on the claim of human rights violations in Cuba,” said the representative from Tanzania. “But Cuban doctors are guaranteeing the human right to health care to women, children, and the elderly in the remotest parts of our country,” he said.

Several of Washington’s imperialist allies—including representatives from Japan, and Australia—objected to the “extra-territorial” application of the embargo’s provisions. This year Washington fined two European airlines thousands of dollars charging that they transported Cuban goods on flights routed through U.S. territory. Two Italian commercial firms were also fined $30,000 each for their transactions with Cuba.

Some made it clear they had a similar political stance toward Havana as Washington, no matter what their position was toward the resolution. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, for example, Arjan Hamburger, deputy EU ambassador from the Netherlands, said that while the European Union opposed Washington’s unilateral sanctions against Cuba, the EU also “strongly condemns the current human rights situation in Cuba.”

Pérez Roque responded that the EU representative’s remarks were typical of its “double standard.” The Cuban diplomat condemned what he called the silence of the EU representative on U.S.-led military actions in Fallujah or regarding the “rights of immigrants in the United States.” With growing racism and attacks against immigrants in Europe, he said, “Cuba does not recognize the moral authority of the EU to condemn Cuba.”
 
 
Related articles:
Cuba confronts new wave of blackouts
Havana bars U.S. dollars in cash transactions  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home