Many Third World countries are finding themselves obliged to seek solutions independently of what happens to the rest; it is like walking on an escalator that is moving in the opposite direction at a higher speed.
by Fidel Castro Ruz
(November 05, Havana, Sri Lanka Guardian) The meeting last Tuesday, October 26 of the UN General Assembly – supposedly the highest political authority on the planet – was convened for a purpose that has been repeated so many times that it is already familiar: "The necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba."
It is the resolution that has been most discussed, successfully passed and never fulfilled in the history of the United Nations.
We all know that, if such an accusation were to be leveled against Cuba or any other Latin American or Caribbean country, even if it were ignored, fire and brimstone would rain down on that country. The detestable act with which, with so much clarity and precision, is attributed to the "United States of America" and the end of which we are demanding, is described in international law as an "act of genocide."
The number of occasions on which the General Assembly has voted in favor of the resolution demanding an end to that abusive and criminal action since 1992, has now risen to 19. But, as the number of times that the resolution has been repeated and passed has grown, the number of countries offering their support has also risen, the number of those abstaining has decreased, as has the miniscule group that has voted against it. On this last occasion, just two countries voted against and three abstained, the names of which correspond to tiny states which are, in reality, dependent colonies of the United States.
One fact to take into account is that great changes have taken place in the world since the UN was founded, when the battles of World War II were still not over, a war which cost the lives of 50 million people and vast destruction. Many countries that today constitute a majority at the United Nations were still colonies of European powers that had taken by force the vast majority of the world’s territory and certain continents almost in their entirety. In more than a few cases, hundreds of millions of people from much more ancient civilizations and of a superior culture, were subjected to colonialism in virtue of the superiority of the weapons of the aggressors.
Cuba was no exception.
In this hemisphere, our country was Spain’s last colony - given its wealth of scarce agricultural products and the subsequent great demand for them- produced by the industrious hands of free campesinos and hundreds of thousands of slaves of African origin. When Spain’s other colonies were liberated in the early decades of the 19th century, that nation maintained its colony in Cuba with a fist of iron and using the most despotic methods.
In the second half of that century, our island – on which Spain dreamed of having a stronghold in order to re-conquer its former colonies in South America – was the cradle of a profound national and patriotic sentiment. The Cuban people initiated the battle for their independence almost 70 years after the other sister nations of Latin America, with no other weapons than the machetes used to cut sugar cane, and the spirit and swiftness of Cuban horses. In very little time, the Cuban patriots became fearsome soldiers.
Thirty years later, our long-suffering people were at the point of achieving their historic objectives in the heroic struggle against a decadent but obstinate European power. Despite the enormous number of soldiers that it possessed, the Spanish army was by then incapable of maintaining its possession of the island, where it only controlled the main urban areas and was on the point of collapse.
It was then that the powerful empire – which had never concealed its intention of taking possession of Cuba – intervened in that war after cynically declaring that the "people of the island of Cuba are and by rights should be free and independent."
At the end of the war, our country was denied the right to participate in the peace negotiations. The Spanish government consummated the betrayal of Cuba by placing her in the hands of those who had intervened.
The United States took control of Cuba’s natural resources, its finest land, commerce, the banks, services and the country’s central industries. It transformed us into a neo-colony. We had to withstand that for more than 60 years but we became independent once again and we will never stop fighting. With those antecedents, readers from other countries will better understand the words of our Foreign Minister Bruno RodrÃguez on October 26 this year.
The debate began at ten o’clock in the morning.
First, five countries spoke on behalf of the Group of 77, the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Union, CARICOM and MERCOSUR, all of them supporting the resolution.
Afterward, another 14 countries spoke including two that have populations of over one billion each: China and India, with almost 2.5 billion between the two of them; others with more than 100 million inhabitants such as the Russian Federation, Indonesia and Mexico; another nine with a recognized role in international life: Venezuela, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Algeria, South Africa, the Solomon Islands, Zambia, Gambia, Ghana and Barbados; 19 speeches before that of Bruno.
His speech was categorical. I will cite many entire paragraphs from his speech. He began with a reference to the grave danger of war that is threatening us and added:
"In order to survive, a leap in the consciousness of humanity is essential, one which is only possible via the dissemination of truthful information about these issues, which is hidden or ignored by most politicians, not published by the press, and which people find so horrifying as to seem unbelievable."
"… the U.S. policy against Cuba is devoid of any ethical or legal basis, credibility or support. This is evidenced by the more than 180 votes in this United Nations General Assembly over the last few years, which have demanded an end of the economic, commercial and financial blockade."
"Latin America and the Caribbean have vigorously and unanimously rejected this policy. The Unity Summit which took place in Cancun in February 2010 resolutely stated the same. The leaders of the region have conveyed this feeling directly to the current U.S. president. It is a fact that the express rejection of the blockade and the Helms-Burton Act characterizes, as very few other issues do, the political heritage of the region."
"Equally unequivocal views have been endorsed by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Ibero-American Summits, the European Union and Latin American and Caribbean Summits, the African Union, the ACP Group Summits and virtually any other group of nations which have pronounced themselves in favor of international law and respect for the principles and intentions of the United Nations Charter."
"There is a broad and growing consensus within United States society and Cuban émigrés in that country against the blockade and in favor of a change of policy toward Cuba […] 71% of American citizens favor the normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States…"
"The sanctions against Cuba remain intact and are being fully implemented."
"In the course of the year 2010, the economic siege has been tightened and its everyday impact continues to be visible in all aspects of life in Cuba. It is having particularly serious consequences in areas as sensitive to the population as health and food."
He immediately goes on to note a series of cruel measured that notably affect children with delicate health problems, which the United States government would not be able to refute.
He then says:
"Fines imposed this year by the Treasury and Justice Departments on U.S. and European agencies for their transactions with Cuba, among other states, total more than $800 million dollars."
He continues informing:
"The confiscation of a transfer of more than 107,000 euros belonging to the Cubana de Aviación airline, made via the Banco Popular Español from Madrid to Moscow, constitutes veritable theft."
In continuation, our minister of foreign affairs notes something of much importance in relation to the effects of the gross crime against the Cuban economy, given the tendency to mention historic figures of the amount in dollars of the value of movable or fixed assets, loans, debts or anything else measured in U.S. dollars, without taking into account the constantly decreasing value of the dollar in the last four decades. To give one example, I quote a famous soft drink: Coca Cola – without charging anything for the publicity. Forty years ago it cost 5 cents, now its price fluctuates between 150-200 cents in any country.
Bruno states:
"The direct economic damage inflicted on the Cuban people by the implementation of the blockade over the last 50 years amounts to more than $751 billion dollars, according to the present value of that currency."
In other words, he does not fall into the error of utilizing the sum of losses signified by the blockade year by year as if the value of the dollar was exactly the same every year. As a consequence of the world fraud signified by Nixon’s unilateral suspension of that currency’s backing in gold at the rate of 36 dollars per Troy ounce, compounded by the issuing of dollars without any limit whatsoever, the purchasing power of that money has been extraordinarily reduced. MINREX took on the task of asking a group of experts from the Ministry of the Economy to make an assessment, and this threw up the economic damage of the blockade of Cuba over the past 50 years as expressed in the current value of that currency.
"On September 2," he said in his speech, "President Obama himself ratified the sanctions against Cuba, alluding to the supposed U.S. ‘national interest.’ However, everybody knows that the White House continues to pay more attention to the well-funded ‘special interests’ of a meager minority which has converted the anti-Cuba policy into a highly lucrative business."
"Very recently, on October 19, President Obama described all the processes that, in his view, are occurring today in Cuba as insufficient and conditioned any new step by his government to internal changes that it would like to see in our country.
"The president is mistaken in assuming that he has the right to interfere and evaluate the processes currently taking place in Cuba. It is regrettable that he is so misinformed and ill-advised.
"The transformations that we are currently undertaking respond to Cubans’ aspirations and sovereign decisions adopted by our people. […] They are not intended to please or satisfy the interests of the U.S. government, to date always opposed to those of the Cuban people.
"For the superpower, any process that is not conducive to the establishment of a regime subordinated to its interest will be insufficient. But that is not going to happen, because many generations of Cubans have dedicated and are dedicating their lives to defending the sovereignty and independence of Cuba."
"On the contrary, the U.S. government has continued with its arbitrary practice of adding Cuba’s name to spurious lists, including that of states allegedly sponsoring international terrorism, produced by the State Department to evaluate the conduct of other nations. That country has no moral authority to draw up such lists – as a rule it is its name that should appear at the top of them – nor is there any reason whatsoever to include Cuba on any of those lists."
"The U.S. government is likewise upholding the unjust conviction imposed on the five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters who have been incarcerated for more than 12 years in U.S. prisons and whose cause has prompted the broadest solidarity within the international community.
"Cuba, which has been and still is a victim of state terrorism, demands that that government ends its double standards and the impunity enjoyed in its territory by the confessed authors of acts of terrorism organized under the auspices of that country’s anti-Cuban policy…"
Having reached that point, Bruno delivered to the United States delegation the coup de grâce of the famous memorandum drafted by Lester Mallory, former deputy assistant secretary of state, declassified many years later, which demonstrates the repugnant cynicism of the policy of the United States.
"’The majority of Cubans support Castro […] There is no effective political opposition […] The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support [from the government] is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. Every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken economic life […] denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.’"
"Although this economic persecution has been the main obstacle to our country’s development and an improvement in the living standards of our people, Cuba can show undeniable results in the eradication of poverty and hunger, in the fields of health and education, which have become a world referent…"
"A few weeks ago Cuba was able to declare here that it had largely and exceptionally complied with the Millennium Development Goals. These results achieved by Cuba remain a utopia for a large part of the population of the planet."
"Cuba will never cease to denounce the blockade; it will never cease to demand its people’s legitimate right to live and work for their socioeconomic development under conditions of equality, in cooperation with other nations, without any economic siege or external pressure.
"Cuba thanks the international community for its firm solidarity with our people, convinced that, some day, justice will be served and this resolution will no longer be necessary."
"Thank you very much."
He said, to conclude his first speech.
WHEN Bruno concluded his speech around midday last October 26, as is the norm, it was then time for the explanations of vote prior to the resolution being submitted to the vote.
First to speak was U.S. ambassador Ronald D. Godard, senior area advisor for western hemisphere affairs and head of his country’s delegation. His extraordinary words render analysis unnecessary in order to demonstrate that the denunciations of the Cuban foreign minister were absolutely just. His own affirmations suffice to reflect the callous cynicism of that country’s policy.
"The United States of America […] is firmly committed to supporting the desire of the Cuban people to freely determine their country’s future."
"The United States of America […] has the sovereign right to conduct its economic relationship with another country. The U.S. economic relationship with Cuba is a bilateral issue […] meant to encourage a more open environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."
"We should not lose sight of that in a debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and focused on tactical differences—a debate that does nothing to help the Cuban people."
"My delegation regrets that the delegation from Cuba continues, year after year, to inappropriately and incorrectly label U.S. trade restrictions on Cuba as an act of genocide. […] the United States holds no restriction on humanitarian aid to Cuba..."
"The United States in 2009 […] authorized $237 million in private humanitarian assistance in the form of gift parcels filled with food and other basic necessities, non-agricultural humanitarian donations, and medical donations."
"In April 2009, President Obama stated ‘the United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba,’ but ‘there is a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome the decades of mistrust.’ […] we have initiated talks to re-establish direct mail service between the United States and Cuba, and we have increased artistic and cultural exchanges…"
"President Obama has stated publicly that the release of political prisoners and economic reforms are positive for the Cuban people. The United States hopes to see the fulfillment of these promises soon as well as a broader opening by the Cuban government to signal its willingness to engage constructively with its own people. […] it is the view of the United States that a new era in U.S.-Cuban relations cannot be fully realized until the Cuban people enjoy the internationally-recognized political and economic freedoms that this body has done so much to defend in other countries around the world."
"My delegation will vote against this resolution. Indeed, the United States believes that it is high time for this body to focus its energies on supporting the Cuban people in their quest to freely decide their own future and move beyond the rhetorical posturing that this resolution represents.
"Thank you, Mr. President."
Immediately after, explaining her intention of vote, came the head of the delegation from Nicaragua, whose people experienced the horrors of Ronald Reagan’s dirty war that caused so much bloodshed. Her words were forceful and convincing.
The vote took place and 187 countries voted in favor of the Resolution; two votes against: the United States and Israel, its inseparable ally in genocidal actions; and three abstentions: the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. Every country out of the 192 member states of the UN participated.
After the vote, the Belgian representative – on behalf of the European Union and an ally of the United States – opened the discussion for the delegations who wished to explain their vote.
Then, 16 countries with an outstanding leading role in international politics spoke to explain why they had voted in favor of the resolution. They appeared in the following order: Uruguay, Bolivia, Angola, Myanmar, Surinam, Belarus, St. Kitts & Nevis, Laos, Tanzania, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Vietnam, Nigeria, St. Vincent & the Grenadines and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
You should remember that many countries refrained from speaking at the request of our own delegation so that the voting process was not prolonged too much to the detriment of the best timetable for the development of the debate, and the overwhelming effort implied by the participation of a significant number of speakers. Despite that, 37 delegations spoke in very clear and precise terms in favor of the just resolution that, for the 19th occasion, was passed by the UN General Assembly. On this occasion, it was the most prolonged and energetic debate on that delicate and important issue.
At 4:17pm, Cuba’s reply was heard via the minister of foreign affairs of our country.
The essence of what he said, although almost all of the text was essential, was:
Mr. President:
"I would like to thank the three speakers for their words and the delegations present in this unexpected early evening session.
"Regarding what was said by the United States and the European Union:
"This is the 19th occasion on which the U.S. delegation has repeated the same things to us.
"The blockade is an act of economic warfare and an act of genocide.
"Could it be that the State Department has not done its homework or studied the matter?
"Last year, I read here the articles of the corresponding conventions…"
"I have already read here today Mr. Mallory’s famous memorandum.
"These are not "ideological arguments" from the past. The blockade is an old ice floe left over from the Cold War. It is not a rhetorical matter, but an act of aggression against Cuba.
"The aim of the United States is not to help or support the Cuban people. It is well known that the blockade provokes hardship and suffering. It does not provoke deaths because the Cuban Revolution prevents that. How can it justify punishing Cuban children as has been described here? If it wants to help or support the Cuban people, the only thing it has to do is lift the blockade immediately.
"Why do they prevent U.S. citizens from visiting Cuba and receiving information at first hand? Why do they restrict the so-called "people to people" contacts?
"The pretexts for the blockade have changed over time. First, for allegedly belonging to the Chinese-Soviet axis; then the supposed export of revolution to Latin America; then the presence of Cuban troops in Africa to help defeat the apartheid system, preserve Angolan independence and achieve it in Namibia.
"Later, the manipulation of human rights. But the blockade is a brutal violation of the human rights of the Cuban people.
"We are willing to discuss human rights violations. We could start with the concentration camp in Guantánamo where torture is practiced and habeas corpus does not exist. It is the kingdom of "Military Commissions," outside of the rule of law. Could the U.S. delegation explain what happened in the camps of Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Nama?
"Were charges brought against those responsible? Were charges brought against those in European governments who authorized the secret prisons in Europe and the secret CIA flights carrying individuals who had been kidnapped? Can the representative of the European Union clarify that matter?
"We could talk about Wikileaks. Why don’t they tell us something about the atrocities detailed in the 75,000 documents on crimes committed in Afghanistan or the 400,000 on Iraq?"
"Changes in Cuba are a matter for the Cuban people. We will change everything that has to be changed, for the good of the Cuban people, but we will not ask for the opinion of the U.S. government. We freely chose our destiny. For that reason, we made a revolution. They will be sovereign changes, not "gestures". We know that the only thing that would satisfy the United States would be the installation of a pro-yanki government in Cuba. But that is not going to happen."
"You want cooperation between our universities? Eliminate the restrictions on academic, student, scientific and cultural exchanges and allow us to establish agreements between these institutions.
"You want cooperation on issues such as drug-trafficking, terrorism, human-trafficking, natural disasters and mail services? Respond, at the very least, to the proposal that we presented, unconditionally, more than one year ago."
"A high-ranking official with USAID confirmed yesterday to journalist Tracey Eaton that, during the most recent period, $15.6 million dollars have been handed over to (and I quote) ‘individuals on the ground in Cuba.’ That’s what they call their mercenaries.
"The illegal radio and television broadcasts continue.
"The five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters are still unjustly incarcerated. Recently, with no motive whatsoever, Gerardo Hernández Nordelo was subjected to solitary confinement and denied medical attention.
"Self-confessed international terrorists such as Orlando Bosch and Posada Carriles freely walk the streets in Miami and even participate in political activities there."
"The blockade is abusively extraterritorial and affects all those present here. It is not a bilateral matter.
"Mr. President:
"I have little to add to what has already been said about the European Union:
"We do not recognize any moral or political authority whatsoever on the part of that body in terms of human rights.
"It would do better to concern itself with its brutal anti-immigrant policy, the deportation of minorities, the violent repression of demonstrators and the growing social exclusion of its unemployed and low-income sectors.
"Shamelessly and disgracefully, the European Parliament devotes itself to awarding prizes to the paid agents of the U.S. government in Cuba.
"But the European Union is dreaming if it believes that it will be able to normalize relations with Cuba while the so-called Common Position exists.
"Thank you very much."
We were all expecting the United States’ reply to Bruno’s reply. The best thing that the U.S. ambassador, and the delegation, did in his life – and without making the derogatory gesture of leaving the hall – was to withstand that volley of irrefutable arguments. Cuba’s reply left them paralyzed; I had the sensation that they were progressively fading away until disappearing from the scenario.
Over 50 years of blockade, the superpower has not been able to, nor will be able to, defeat the Cuban Revolution. I did not devote myself to the exercise of counting votes in favor or against the "Resolution." Instead, I observed the warmth and the conviction of those who spoke against the unjust and arbitrary measure. It is an error to believe that that measure can be maintained indefinitely. It was an uprising. The peoples have had enough of aggression, plunder, abuse and deceit.
Never did the delegations express with such vigor their protest at the mockery implied by the contemptuous disregard of the world community’s just condemnation of an act of genocide, which is reiterated year after year. They are aware that the gravest act is the systematic plunder of their natural resources imposed on the majority of the peoples of the planet, the progressive scarcity of foodstuffs, the destruction of the environment, the growing number of genocidal wars against other peoples, supported by military bases located in more than 75 countries, and the growing danger of a suicidal conflagration for all the peoples of the world.
The UN cannot exist without the presence of the peoples who are demanding the end of the blockade. What use is that institution, which came into existence when the vast majority of us were not even independent, without us? What right do we have, if we cannot even demand that the blockade imposed on a little country must end? In one way or another we have been subordinated to the interests of the United States and NATO, a warmongering military organization that squanders more than one trillion dollars every year on wars and weapons, a sum that would be more than enough to bring the essentials to all the peoples of the world.
Many Third World countries are finding themselves obliged to seek solutions independently of what happens to the rest; it is like walking on an escalator that is moving in the opposite direction at a higher speed.
What is needed is a genuinely democratic UN and not an imperial fiefdom in which the vast majority of nations count for nothing. The UN, founded before the end of World War II, is exhausted. We should not allow the imposition of the ridiculous role of meeting again in 12 months to be made a mockery of. Let us make our demand felt and save the life of our species before it is too late.
Post a Comment