Posted on 11/27/2001 11:06:18 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly, for the 10th consecutive year, voted overwhelmingly Tuesday for an end to the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, with Havana saying not even most Americans approved of the 4-decade-old sanctions.
The vote was 167-3, identical to last year's record vote. Those opposing the resolution, in addition to the United States, were Israel and the Marshall Islands, the same countries who supported Washington in 2000.
Nations abstaining were Latvia, Micronesia and Nicaragua. All three nations abstained last year, in addition to Morocco.
Despite strong U.N. support for American positions since the Sept. 11 attack against the United States, sympathy for Cuba's financial plight and condemnation of the blockade remained unchanged.
The 15 members of the European Union all voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution because of U.S. laws that seek to prevent foreign firms from having commercial dealings with Cuba. Belgium, speaking for the EU, said Europeans deplored the consequences of the embargo on the Cuban people.
Speaker after speaker, especially those from developing countries, said the unilateral embargo was a violation of the U.N. Charter, and affected international trade.
The resolution, as in previous years, referred to the 1996 Helms-Burton Act that allowed U.S. citizens who were Cuban citizens before President Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution to file suit in U.S. courts against foreign companies or individuals who ``traffic'' in expropriated property.
U.S. representative James Cunningham said the trade embargo was designed to promote democracy in Cuba and that the United States had moved dramatically to allow Havana to buy food.
``Cuba, long out of step with the trend of democratization in the world ... has proven itself even more out of step with its recent hideous remarks on the U.S. reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks,'' he said.
Havana's foreign minister, Felipe Perez Roque, last month denounced Washington for waging an ``ineffective unjustifiable bombing campaign'' in Afghanistan.
But Perez, in his address to the assembly Tuesday, detailed the U.S. prohibitions and said Cuba would be willing to reach an agreement ``for the nearly 6,000 U.S. companies and citizens'' whose properties were nationalized after the 1959 revolution.
However, he couched his unusual offer by saying that ''Cuba-recognizes their rights -- and would be willing to reach an agreement that also takes into account the extremely burdensome economic and human hardships inflicted on our country by the blockade.''
And he said that putting Cuba on the State Department list of terrorist states was particularly outrageous.
``This is an outrage to the Cuban people, who have in fact, as everyone knows, been the victims of countless terrorist acts organized and financed with total impunity from U.S. territory,'' Perez said.
``The blockade does not enjoy majority support in the United States,'' he said.
(November 23, 2001)-Most Latins disapprove of Castro, survey says--The finding comes days before this weekend's Ibero-American Summit in Peru, a forum where Castro has often attracted the lion's share of the attention from the media -- and from other participants, in some cases -- in spite of representing a country at variance with the prevailing democratic currents in the region. Saladrigas said he hoped that knowledge of the poll would prod Latin American leaders to take a more outspoken position against Castro and the Cuban government. (Castro sent a last minute letter of regret to the Summit---he said he was needed at home)
So now I guess its just unjustifiable?
When do we start bombing Cuba??
What about the Cuban citizens at the time whose properties and possessions were "nationalized" (Orwellian for stolen)?
You don't have to look far for Castro apologists.
This is why the US should support Israel. They are the only country in the world that nearly always supports Uncle Sam. Even the UK pales in comparison.
(July 13, 2001) Another Big Decision: A Bush family moment
(Miami Herald 7/17/01; New York Times 7/1701) BUSH WAIVES EMBARGO PROVISION: U.S. President George W. Bush announced on July 16 he would waive the controversial Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act ("Helms-Burton"), a 1996 law strengthening the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba. Former President Bill Clinton regularly waived Title III, which would allow U.S. citizens and corporations to sue a foreign company that uses property confiscated from them after the 1959 Cuban Revolution.
Rightwing Cuban-American politicians, who are mostly Republicans, repeatedly criticized Clinton, a Democrat, for waiving Title III, which is strongly opposed by U.S. trading partners. In January, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said she expected a new approach from the Republican Bush, since he "supports our cause". After Bush's July 16 announcement, Ros-Lehtinen said that although the decision was "regrettable, we must also take note of the positive work he's done in a few months in support of programs which will help bring freedom to the Cuban people." In contrast, Rep. Bob Menéndez of New Jersey, a Cuban-American Democrat, called Bush "dishonest and weak," and said he had "failed the Cuban people." [End]
The real cause of Cuba's hardship is not the embargo but the state's Soviet-style economy. Traditional exports such as sugar cost the regime more to produce than they sell for on the global market. Tourism brings in hard currency but not nearly enough to provide for Cuba's needs. Debt payments are so uncertain that major trade partners often must extend new loans. [End Excerpt]
Friends of Fidel--Washington Times-[Excerpt] Louisiana rice and Illinois wheat producers should not assume that selling to Havana is synonymous with getting paid. U.S taxpayers should be wary. Mr. Castro desperately needs credits and subsidies, and Washington is being pressured to provide them.
If the United States begins to subsidize trade with Cuba estimated at $100 million a year five years from now, U.S. taxpayers could be holding, or paying off, a $500 million tab. That´s real money.
Before extending Mr. Castro credit, grain growers should visit any street corner in Manhattan and observe a game played there. Called three-card monte, it consists of convincing the player that he knows exactly where the card carrying his money is. Until it disappears. In this game, the gambler takes his own chances. Where trade with Mr. Castro is concerned, the U.S. taxpayer will be left holding the losing card. -[End Excerpt]
I'm going to pass the chance to speculate on the sanity of such an august body as this one voting ten consecutive years & getting ten consecutive *nos* in response to their *vote* doing it yet again next year...
I find it more than interesting Havana's speaking for the average United States' citizen on this matter.
Unless of course, they're getting this bilge straight from the mouths of Daschle & Gephardt?
...which is a distinct possibility.
Somebody should explain to Eleanor Leopold the difference between a trade embargo and a "blockade." She obviously doesn't know.
We ought to do to Cuba what W. Germany did to E. Germany - flood the island with US goods, TV, radio, CD's, tourists, etc. until the Cuban people demand an end to communism and a joinder with the West.
The LIBERAL media is one of Castro's biggest fans. I don't doubt she just likes passing on anti-American propaganda.
Will someone call for Castro to tear down his wall of communism? Will the world raise it's voice in support? Will we help the opposition in Cuba? Or will we just support communism becase it helps our farmers sell rice? (I don't believe it a good business, political or humanitarian decision--the taxpayers will only foot the bill for Castro's IOUs and we will line the pockets of a communist dicator and aid him in exporting terrorism and the ongoing oppression of the Cuban people.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.