Dear Editor,
Nothing appears more anachronistic and incomprehensible than the US embargo against Cuba. First imposed on the island in October 1960 by the Eisenhower administration, it reflected the Cold War mentality then shadowing all major international relations. The embargo, alternately strengthened and relaxed over the years, has been the longest and least effective embargo in history. Designed to weaken and overthrow the Cuban government, it has been a complete fiasco. During that time the Castro brothers, Fidel and Raúl, in Cuba have survived the 11 changes of presidential administration in the United States. But the Cuban embargo affects more than just the two neighbouring countries.
For the past 21 years the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution condemning the embargo. The first vote in 1992 passed with 59 votes for, two against and 71 abstentions. Only the US and Israel voted against the resolution. Since 1993 the vote has been overwhelmingly in favour of the motion. Last Tuesday's vote was illustrative of the pattern for almost 20 years. The US, Israel and the miniscule Pacific state of Palau voted against the motion. The Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. The other 188 nations voted in favour.
The Cubans describe the embargo as a blockade that strangles the economy of the island, and in the words of their Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla is tantamount to "an act of genocide (and a) massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire people". Before 1980 Cuban officials hardly mentioned the embargo. And despite the embargo, the US is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba, accounting for almost seven per cent of all Cuban imports. All legal trade transactions between the US and Cuba must, however, be conducted in cash. Moreover, the US maintains punitive measures against third-party commerce with Cuba.
It is hard to discern any truly beneficial advantages for the US to retain this manifestly unjust and possibly illegal embargo against a sovereign state. Although the US government gives different reasons at different times for upholding the measure, none has ever been persuasive. The latest rationale is that Cuba does not respect human rights, and has arrested and imprisoned Alan Gross, a minor sub-contractor of USAID, on charges of espionage. What is harder to determine is why the USA cannot realise that the successive lopsided votes in the UN against the embargo reflect a severe weakening of its moral authority and its standing in the world.
Over the years the embargo has cost the US much in international goodwill and economic growth. Its retention is no longer worth the price. It is time for the USA to do the right thing and drop this unpopular measure. For a normally pragmatic country like the US, recognising the efficacy of change is part of policy creation and implementation. Yet on this issue the government seems to fall hostage to a small number of special interest groups whose personal goals are in sharp conflict with the national well-being. Jamaica and Caricom should be more aggressive in opposing the US embargo of Cuba.
David James
Kingston
Time for the US to end the embargo on Cuba
-->
Nothing appears more anachronistic and incomprehensible than the US embargo against Cuba. First imposed on the island in October 1960 by the Eisenhower administration, it reflected the Cold War mentality then shadowing all major international relations. The embargo, alternately strengthened and relaxed over the years, has been the longest and least effective embargo in history. Designed to weaken and overthrow the Cuban government, it has been a complete fiasco. During that time the Castro brothers, Fidel and Raúl, in Cuba have survived the 11 changes of presidential administration in the United States. But the Cuban embargo affects more than just the two neighbouring countries.
For the past 21 years the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution condemning the embargo. The first vote in 1992 passed with 59 votes for, two against and 71 abstentions. Only the US and Israel voted against the resolution. Since 1993 the vote has been overwhelmingly in favour of the motion. Last Tuesday's vote was illustrative of the pattern for almost 20 years. The US, Israel and the miniscule Pacific state of Palau voted against the motion. The Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. The other 188 nations voted in favour.
The Cubans describe the embargo as a blockade that strangles the economy of the island, and in the words of their Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla is tantamount to "an act of genocide (and a) massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire people". Before 1980 Cuban officials hardly mentioned the embargo. And despite the embargo, the US is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba, accounting for almost seven per cent of all Cuban imports. All legal trade transactions between the US and Cuba must, however, be conducted in cash. Moreover, the US maintains punitive measures against third-party commerce with Cuba.
It is hard to discern any truly beneficial advantages for the US to retain this manifestly unjust and possibly illegal embargo against a sovereign state. Although the US government gives different reasons at different times for upholding the measure, none has ever been persuasive. The latest rationale is that Cuba does not respect human rights, and has arrested and imprisoned Alan Gross, a minor sub-contractor of USAID, on charges of espionage. What is harder to determine is why the USA cannot realise that the successive lopsided votes in the UN against the embargo reflect a severe weakening of its moral authority and its standing in the world.
Over the years the embargo has cost the US much in international goodwill and economic growth. Its retention is no longer worth the price. It is time for the USA to do the right thing and drop this unpopular measure. For a normally pragmatic country like the US, recognising the efficacy of change is part of policy creation and implementation. Yet on this issue the government seems to fall hostage to a small number of special interest groups whose personal goals are in sharp conflict with the national well-being. Jamaica and Caricom should be more aggressive in opposing the US embargo of Cuba.
David James
Kingston
Time for the US to end the embargo on Cuba
-->