The US Embargo on Cuba: A Tangible Example of the Intrinsic Failure of the United Nations General Assembly

Wed, Nov 21st, 2012

Columns / Featured | By Neelam Melwani



The US Embargo on Cuba: A Tangible Example of the Intrinsic Failure of

the United Nations General Assembly



On 13 November 2012, for the 21st consecutive year, the world condemned

the 52 year old US trade embargo on Cuba in an almost unanimous vote.

What is the US trade embargo on Cuba? When was it installed? And why,

regardless of international pressure does this still exist? Is there

anything that the Fidel Castro's administration could do to eliminate

this embargo?



The US trade embargo on Cuba goes back 52 years, 2 years after the

beginning of the Cuban Revolution which removed pro-American president

Batista, and replaced him with the anti-American communist regime of

Fidel Castro. The blockade was a reaction to the nationalization of land

in Cuba, which put US citizens and corporations in Cuba in very

difficult situations, where the Cubans could decide upon their own fate

rather than having the US determine it for them. The embargo remained

open to each administration, and so the strength and weakness of the

embargo fluctuated in light of the economic and political tensions of

the Cold War and on American leadership. In 1992 however, the Cuban

Democracy Act was codified into law, which allowed the US to legally

maintain its sanctions against Cuba until they moved closer towards

respecting human rights and democracy. In 1996, the US went one step

further by prohibiting US citizens from doing business with Cuban

companies or providing the Cubans with any financial support whatsoever.



While President Bill Clinton attempted to authorize humanitarian aid

from the US for the citizens of the island, the embargo as codified into

law still stands. Regardless of these embargoes, the US still plays a

key role in the Cuban economy providing it with 6.6% of its imports,

which may not be paid by credit but only in cash, giving US citizens the

upper hand in these transactions.



With the codification of the embargo in US law came the direct

condemnation by member states of the United Nations (UN), a condemnation

that is even more fervent today, leading member-states to pass UN

General Assembly resolutions each year for the past 21 years. Various

states claim that the US embargo on Cuba runs against international law

as it infringes on the sovereignty of the Cuban state and prohibits US

citizens from doing business with them, which impinges on these

citizen's human rights. Under the charter of the UN, each state is

perceived as legally equally, however the US trade embargo on Cuba, as

codified into US law is interfering with the Cuban equality amongst

states, prohibiting them from trading to their full potential. According

to the representative of China in the General Assembly, "It is

disappointing to witness the lingering unilateral and discriminatory

commercial practices in today's world of independence and multilateral

cooperation among states. The blockade violates international law… it is

a transgression to the rights of the sovereign states to peace,

development, and security and is in essence an objective of unilateral

aggression and a permanent threat to the stability of the country."



The passing of 21 consecutive resolutions by a clear majority in the UN

General Assembly raises two points regarding the United Nations: (1) In

the General Assembly, the majority of countries are able to express

their viewpoints on a very equal standpoint, and (2) the power of the UN

General Assembly is inherently non-existent due to the lack of

jurisdiction. Defending Cuba in the face of the US is a difficult thing

to do, but doing so in the General Assembly makes it easier for

countries like the Solomon Islands or Uruguay who can express their

opinions in a way where their self-interest is in no way affected. That

being said however, in the UN Security Council, the five permanent

members have veto power in addition to their initial pull as leaders of

trade, development aid and other international influence. The role of

the Security Council however, is quite different to that of the General

Assembly, whose resolutions are recommendations and condemnations but

are in no way binding for nation-states. This is fully evident in the

resolution passed regarding the US Trade Embargo on Cuba. Regardless of

how many resolutions the General Assembly passes, and regardless of the

powerful speeches given by various member states, the US has no legally

binding responsibility to eliminate their embargo, and it remains a

decision made simply by their government.



This year, the Obama administration stated that they would indeed reduce

the extent of the embargo on Cuba but there was no chance that the

embargo would be completely eliminated; as it is part of US law.

Irrespective of the powerful statements made by Cuba, who claimed that

the US government has shackled the independence of the Cuban people,

while supporting bloody dictatorship across the globe. Notwithstanding

the bold statements made comparing the embargo to genocide, the US

Embargo on Cuba is here to stay, reiterating how while the UN is all we

have, its successes are often undermined by its flaws. The principles

for which it stands: sovereignty, equality, and respect are in their

essence intrinsic to its inherent failure.



http://www.curacaochronicle.com/columns/the-us-embargo-on-cuba-a-tangible-example-of-the-intrinsic-failure-of-the-united-nations-general-assembly/