United Nations representatives statements condemning the US blockade of Cuba

On October 26, 2010 the United Nations General Assembly met and condemned, by a vote of 187-2, the blockade of the United States against Cuba.

Below are their declarations during the debate before the vote.

Statements:

ABDULLAH ALI FADHEL AL-SAADI (Yemen), on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said his delegation had always been firmly against the embargo and would like to reiterate once again its long-standing position on that important matter. The Group called upon the Government of the United States to end the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba which, in addition to being unilateral and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law, as well as the principle of neighbourliness, caused huge material losses and economic damage to the people of Cuba. At the Group’s most recent annual meeting, its Ministers for Foreign Affairs firmly rejected the imposition of laws and regulations with extraterritorial impacts and all other forms of coercive economic measures, including unilateral sanctions against developing countries, and reiterated the urgent need to eliminate them immediately.

Such actions also severely threatened the freedom of trade and investment, and the international community should neither recognize those measures nor apply them. Sadly, communications between Governments and the United Nations on the matter unequivocally showed that the embargo remained largely unchanged and continued to impose severe economic and financial restrictions on Cuba, he said. The deepening impact of the global economic crisis on Cuba and the continued United States embargo would contribute to further aggravate the hardships for the people of Cuba. He called on the United States to heed the increasing calls by the international community to bring an end to the five-decade-old embargo and fully adhere to principles of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs of a sisterly country.

The embargo frustrated efforts towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and negatively affected regional cooperation in that area, he said. The peaceful co-existence among nations required an adherence by all to the cardinal principles of the Charter and the peaceful conduct or relations among nations. The Group of 77 and China would again fully support the draft resolution against the embargo and urged all Member States to do so as well, he said.

MAGED ABDELAZIZ (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to defend, uphold and promote the United Nations Charter and the international laws that constituted the very essence of the multilateralism designed work to maintain peace and security, achieve economic sustainability and assure human rights. To that end, he renewed his commitment to Cuba, noting that it was disturbing that unilateral measures or laws continued to prevent countries from exercising their right to decide their own political system. “We can only firmly reject such violations of multilateralism”, he said, and appealed to all States to recognize those efforts.

This year’s central theme of the Assembly’s work — reaffirm the central role of the United Nations — could only happen if all countries respected the rules of multilateralism in addition to sovereignty, good neighbourliness and mutual respect, he said. The United States embargo against Cuba undoubtedly ran counter to those principles and raised many questions, particularly, how could a country raise barriers to one of its neighbours when it promoted free trade and export; and how could it impose limits on the rights of people to travel when it advocated freedom of movement. Such contradictions were bewildering and must be promptly rectified, especially after some 187 Member States expressed there support last year by voting in favour of the resolution.

At a 2009 summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Ministers had adopted a declaration reflecting the Non-Aligned Movement’s position. The evidence on the ground in Cuba was a stark reminder of what the embargo has done to the country. The repercussions not only affected the banking, trade, tourism, and other industries, but had negatively impacted health, nutrition, water quality, education and culture. In closing, he said the Non-aligned Movement reaffirmed its concerns and backed the argument in favour of prompt elimination of those unjustified sanctions. Year after year, Assembly took actions to swiftly lift embargo against Cuba, however, “maintaining the embargo seems to be part of an era long gone”, he said. The United States should match its statements about openness with actions welcomed by international community. The Non-aligned Movement would continue to send that message to the United Nations. In Spanish, he said: “End the blockade now”, and then, reverting to English, “This time our call will not go unheard”.

BRIAN G. BOWLER (Malawi), speaking on behalf of the African Group, added his voice to the call to end the United States embargo against Cuba, an issue that had been on the United Nations agenda for the last 18 years. As chair of the African Union, he reiterated the decision of the fifteenth Summit of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union on 27 July, in Kampala, Uganda, calling on the United States to do just that. In his address on 23 September, Malawi’s President also had stated categorically that sanctions had caused great economic hardship, especially to the poor and more vulnerable in targeted countries, including Cuba.

On behalf of the African Union, he challenged those concerned to promote social progress and better living standards, as set forth in the United Nations Charter. “We, in Africa, believe that it is now time to give dialogue a chance and allow Cuba to continue to effectively contribute its fair share to global development”, he stressed. African countries, like the majority of Member States, believed it was high time that the embargo was lifted, considering that it had been 50 years since it was imposed. Children born after 1960 had not known anything else and as such, he reiterated the Union’s call for the embargo’s immediate lifting.

PAULETTE BETHEL, (Bahamas), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), reiterated the unequivocal opposition of CARICOM member States to the United States’ imposition of the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. The unilateral imposition of extraterritorial laws on third States was contrary to both the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, she said, adding that the embargo itself runs counter to the principles of the Organization.

She noted that CARICOM considered the embargo an anachronism in the twenty first century, contributing only to the suffering of generations of ordinary Cubans and unnecessarily increasing tensions between the United States and Cuba. Because the embargo served no justifiable legal, political or moral purpose today, she said CARICOM States therefore maintained the position that constructive engagement and peaceful negotiations remained the only acceptable means for advancing long-term peace and stability. Noting that the resolution on the matter of the embargo had been repeatedly and overwhelmingly adopted by the General Assembly, she stated that its continued disregard would only complicate the President of the General Assembly’s stated goal of improving the role of the United Nations in matters of global governance. CARICOM believed that the Assembly President should explore additional mechanisms to operationalize the words of the current resolution.

The significance of the embargo on the Cuban community continued to be of great concern to CARICOM, and its humanitarian impact on the people of Cuba was especially saddening, she continued. It is remarkable, she noted, that even as Cuba struggled with a recent unfortunate string of natural disasters and the continued impact of the global economic crisis, it continued to assist other nations in the developing world. While CARICOM continued to enjoy friendly relations with both Cuba and the United States, it called, once again, for an end to the embargo, and remained guardedly optimistic that the United States’ recent recommitment to multilateralism would result in an increased willingness to consider the opinions and concerns of its global friends and partners on the matter.

REGINA MARIA CORDEIRO DUNLOP (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), recalled that the Common Market had been founded on the principle of solidarity, and as such, was bound to its Latin American neighbours by the desire to live in peace, and to defend both the equality and sovereignty of States. Those ideals had historically oriented the relationship among Latin American societies and, in that regard, Brazil had welcomed decisions taken in the last year, including the easing of travel restrictions, removal of limits on remittances and relaxation of conditions for sending packages.

However, it was unfortunate that further similar actions had not been applied, she said, and the embargo continued without modifications and conditionalities were again in the path to greater openness. The embargo contravened principles of the United Nations as well as international law, notably the principles of equality among States, non-interference in internal affairs and peaceful solution of controversies. It also ran contrary to the principles of justice and human rights.

“We reject on principle unilateral and extraterritorial measures that cause irreparable harm to the welfare of people and obstruct the process of regional integration”, she stressed. Reaffirming resolute support to the resolution, she also reaffirmed the commitment to multilateralism as a legitimate tool for the solution of controversies and an effective way to promote international cooperation. The embargo against Cuba was an outdated policy that did not belong in the present world. Adopting the resolution would provide more indelible proof of the international will to defend freedom solidarity and respect for sovereignty and international law.

CLAUDE HELLER (Mexico) said for 19 consecutive years his Government had used this forum to reiterate its rejection of the embargo against Cuba, and oppose the use of coercive actions that had no legal backing in the United Nations Charter. Any kind of political, economic or military sanctions imposed on States could only emanate from the decisions or recommendations made by the General Assembly or the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter and international law, he said. Unilateral measures applied extraterritorially in third countries produced severe humanitarian consequences, in open contradiction with the objectives that were supposed to inspire them. They also meant renunciation of diplomacy and dialogue, which remained the best and most appropriate ways of resolving disputes among States because they ensured a climate of international peace.

The embargo’s damages were tangible in economic, trade and financial transactions made by Cuba, adversely affected the lives of its people and, indirectly, also affected third countries which could not interact with Cuba in many economic and social activities, he said. Mexico had supported all initiatives against the embargo and would continue to support cooperation and development in Cuba. The historical ties between the two countries had remained steadfast and observed the principles enshrined in the Charter, he said. “In this regard, Mexico reiterates that the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the [United States] against Cuba must come to an end, knowing that this policy, which has lasted almost for half a century, had affected the Cuban people in a silent, systematic and cumulative way,” he said.

WANG MIN (China), welcoming the report of the Secretary-General that was before the Assembly, said that for 18 consecutive years, the world body had adopted resolutions by an overwhelming majority, urging all countries to repeal or invalidate all laws and measures with extraterritorial effect that compromised the sovereignty of other States, undermined the legitimate rights and interests of entities and individuals under jurisdiction of those States, and affected freedom of trade and navigation.

China regretted that those resolutions had not been effectively implemented and the embargo against Cuba had not been lifted. That fact constituted a serious violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter, he continued. China pursued an independent foreign policy of peace and was committed to developing friendly relations with all countries on the basis of the five principles of peaceful coexistence. Moreover, experience showed that sanctions usually failed to achieve their expected results, and instead, ended up victimizing civilians, in particular, the most vulnerable groups, such as women and children.

Stating that multilateralism and democratization of international relations had “taken root in people’s hearts”, while openness, cooperation, mutual benefit and “win-win progress” had become the consensus of the international community, the Chinese Government urged the country concerned to terminate, as soon as possible, its economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. It maintained that all countries should develop their relations in compliance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

JORGE VALERO BRICEÑO (Venezuela) said that during the Assembly’s sixty-fourth session, the overwhelming majority of States had voted in favour of ending the blockade against the Cuban people. The belief was strong among those calling for the respect of sovereignty and self-determination, and condemning threats against States’ political independence. “Will the imperial Government of the United States continue to ignore the will of the General Assembly, which condemns the blockade against the sister republic of Cuba?” he asked. Reaffirming its commitment to humanism, Venezuela rejected such actions against Cubans. The change of Government in the United States had raised expectations about a new policy respecting nations’ sovereignty, but nothing suggested that there had been a substantial change, particularly regarding the blockade.

Rather, the United States continued to ignore the voices of those demanding an end to that “genocidal” policy, he said, recalling that the Torricelli and Helms Burton Act, which prevented Cuban trade with United States companies and their subsidiaries in third countries, persisted. The blockade affected the legitimate interests of any State deciding to do business with Cuba. The damage inflicted by the blockade was unjustifiable. Its diverse impacts affected children with lymphoblastic leukaemia, hindered the import of building materials, and caused annual losses in Cuba’s sugar and tourism industries. In short, it constituted a unilateral denial, by a signatory to the United Nations Charter, of the right to development of another Member State. Despite the blockade, the Cuban Government and people had provided “extraordinary” support to Venezuela, and his country strongly supported today’s resolution.

MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (Iran) said the economic blockade and sanctions against Cuba were illegitimate because they deprived the people of their economic and social nature. Historically, sanctions were a tool used, not to spur international peace and security, but to impose hegemonic intentions of big Powers against other nations and populations. Sanctions were “deplorable”, he said, and had a dramatic impact on the rights recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, causing significant disruption in the distribution of food, pharmaceuticals and sanitation supplies, jeopardized the quality of food and water, interfered with basic health and education systems and undermined the right to work in a country. Notwithstanding the harm that sanctions bore, they had proved to be futile, and do not subscribe to the provisions of the Charter, he said.

The imposition of unilateral blockades and extraterritorial application of domestic laws by a State, which “happens to be the United States of America”, against others affected, not only the population under sanction, but the interest of third parties. During the last 19 years, the Assembly had witnessed the passage of 18 resolutions to end the sanctions against Cuba. The economic, financial and commercial embargo against Cuba served no purpose other than inflicting hardships and suffering, and ran counter to international law and the Charter. Therefore, Iran strongly rejected and remained opposed to the unilateral economic and trade measures against one country. It would do everything to effectively thwart the sanctions and urged other States to do likewise. In closing, he emphasized the urgent need to end such measures against Cuba and other developing countries, noting that regardless of whom they were imposed by, or under what pretext, “sanctions remain illegitimate, futile and misguidedly punitive.”

MOURAD BENMEHIDI (Algeria) aligned with statements made by Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement as well as Yemen on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. He reiterated deep concern at the continuation of the embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba, saying Assembly Members’ consecutive annual adoption by quasi-unanimity of a resolution calling for the lifting of the measures “reflects the profound wish of the international community to put an end to this situation which has lasted far too long.” Algeria has always condemned extra-territorial applications of laws and all forms of coercive economic and trade measures, which contradict international law and principles of the Charter, including the sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, non-intervention and non-interference in internal affairs of any other States.

The blockade caused huge material losses and economic damages to Cuba and also negatively affected the well-being of the Cuban people on a daily basis, he said. Those consequences were exacerbated by the adverse effects of the current global economic and financial crisis that had seriously compromised Cuba’s development efforts. Accordingly, Algeria would vote in favour of the draft resolution to end the embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba, he said.

BASO SANGQU (South Africa) said the blockade against Cuba violated international law and its imposition showed disregard for the noble principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Indeed, the international community had regularly opposed the embargo, notably with its vote in the Assembly last year of 187 to 3, which was an outright rejection of that unilateral act. South Africa supported today’s resolution, as such the embargo had caused untold suffering to Cubans. Aligning with the Non-Aligned Movement and Group of 77 developing countries, he said South Africa, together with its region, had been humbled by Cuba’s historic role played in its liberation. True to their commitment to solidarity, Cubans had not stood by to watch while others were being oppressed, and for that reason, “we owe it to Cuba and its people to join the progressive forces of the world and unequivocally condemn the continued illegal embargo”.

In repeatedly expressing its opposition to the embargo, South Africa had been guided by the basic norms of international law, he explained, and the need to eliminate punitive economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion. The embargo violated the sovereign equality of States. Despite the embargo, Cubans had “extended a hand of friendship” to others around the world, especially in the areas of health, education and biotechnology, and notably in Africa. South Africa and Cuba had maintained longstanding cordial relations and the South Africa-Cuba Joint Consultative Mechanism was a strategic platform for expressing such strong bilateral ties. The extremely harsh global financial crisis had only worsened Cubans’ fate and stifled their outstanding contribution to the economic and social development of the poor. He urged taking meaningful steps to free them from the devastating impacts of the embargo and for the United States to end its unilateral isolation of that country.

HASAN KLEIB (Indonesia) said although it was unilaterally imposed, the United States embargo on Cuba had also impacted the economic and commercial relations of third countries. Much had changed since the initial imposition of the embargo; the world of 2010 was very different from that of 1961, as witnessed when nations had opted to work together to overcome the impact of recent crises on the global economy. “This testifies to the fact that globalization has created the conditions for true global solidarity and partnership among the community of nations. The embargo against Cuba runs contrary to that spirit of unity and solidarity that is taking root in the world today,” he said. From perspectives of the United Nations Charter and international law, the embargo lacked fairness and respect for the equality that should exist between sovereign States, he said.

“Instead of dialogue to resolve differences, what we have is an unwanted standoff that does not allow for an exchange of views to normalize relations,” he said. Not only do political complications result from the embargo, but economic commercial and financial hardships it caused could hardly be justified on humanitarian grounds, he said. Some small meaningful changes had occurred in recent times, such as the easing of travel restrictions and removal of obstacles to transfer remittances, but the time was right for relations between the two main parties to be transformed through constructive engagement. “Lifting the embargo would be in keeping with the spirit of the times,” he said. It would demonstrate unambiguous respect for the principle of non-intervention and Cuba would then be able to exercise its right to develop unhindered, while tensions between the two nations would dissolve, he said.

COLLIN BECK (Solomon Islands), aligning with the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said for the last 19 years, resolutions on dismantling the 51 year old embargo on Cuba had come before the Assembly, and likewise, the global community had called for its lifting. The embargo continued to be so “coated in an ideological suite” that opportunities to relax its lifting kept eluding delegates. It was even sadder when that happened between neighbours. Cuba was working to adapt to life under trying circumstances and he had been deeply touched by that fact, as new generations born into the embargo took on such a responsibility with a common sense of purpose that only spoke of a committed population.

Expressing hope that the principle of good neighbourliness would “win the day” and that the United States would restore, renew and reclaim the respect for Cuba’s sovereignty, he said the United Nations must do what was necessary, in the name of peace and preservation of Cubans’ right to development. The imposition of the embargo was stuck in time and the opportunity to lift it must not be left to time or chance. The Solomon Islands called for the unconditional lifting of the blockade against Cubans and to replace it with genuine dialogue and cooperation.

D. RAJA (India) recalled it was the nineteenth year that the Assembly was deliberating the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. Time and again, it had rejected the imposition of laws and regulations with “extraterritorial effects” on the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation. The Assembly’s resolutions remained unimplemented, which undermined the credibility of “this august house” and weakened multilateralism. The embargo’s extraterritorial effects had denied Cubans access to the United States market, investment, technology and financial services, among other things.

Indeed, Cuba had had to pay enormous extra costs in the last five decades for sourcing products, technology and services from third countries thousands of kilometres away, he said. Cuba’s efforts to provide health assistance to developing countries had borne the brunt of the embargo, making it yet another negative extraterritorial impact of the embargo. The financial, food and energy crises had only made the embargo’s impacts more acute. The United States continued to be a major source of food imports for Cuba, insofar as permitted by the United States Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, and the lifting of travel restrictions would bring immense benefits to Cuban tourism. Congressional efforts to relax or lift the embargo, and the substantial interest in the business sector for unhindered access to the Cuban market, lent further credence to the Assembly’s annual resolutions.

VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) fully shared the view of the majority of States in firmly rejecting the embargo against Cuba and calling for its withdrawal as soon as possible. That would improve the situation. Maintenance of the commercial and economic embargo was an anachronism. Last year, the United States President had taken steps to remove travel restrictions of United States citizens with family in Cuba and to resume dialogue on migration issues. He expressed the hope of seeing further steps towards improved relations, including the full lifting of the embargo. In the meantime, the Russian Federation would vote in favour of the resolution calling for the embargo to be lifted and for non-interference into States’ internal affairs.

LAZAROUS KAPAMBWE (Zambia) associating with the African Group, Group of 77 developing countries and the Non-Aligned Movement, recalled that in 1987, United States President Ronald Regan, addressing the President of the Soviet Union, had called on him to “tear down this wall”. Today, for the sake of suffering Cubans, he appealed earnestly and simply: “President Obama, please do the right thing. Lift the United States embargo against Cuba”. It was time to be on the right side of history.

SUSAN WAFFA-OGOO (Gambia) expressed her bewilderment that a 50-year-old regime was still in tact with occasional “cosmetic tweaks” made to resemble real change. Echoing the words of Gambia’s Foreign Minister, she said, “It is embarrassing that such cruel and outmoded form of settling scores is still in place.” The embargo had no legitimacy, no appeal, and it was time for those who imposed it to show genuine leadership by ending it. The devastating effects of the embargo on the Government and the people of Cuba was well documented, she said, and the United Nations system was paying a heavy price in its activities with Cuba, particularly in areas regarding its Cuban United Nations personnel, visa restrictions, and higher procurement costs.

The embargo had seriously impacted Cuba, she said, and had not spared the country’s agriculture, health, medical research, educational collaboration, cultural exchange, or other domestic interests. Even children were seriously impacted, she said, noting that the HIV/AIDS programme was affected by the lack of procurement of the antiretroviral drugs, Kaletra and Norvir. The odious nature of the embargo was apparent to all and its imposition could not continue, she said. In closing, she said, “The Cuba we know does not deserve these sanctions”. Cuba, in fact, was a leader in providing humanitarian assistance, healthcare and education around the globe. Cuba was not a threat to any country’s national security and was a country that promoted friendly relations between its peoples and countries of every region represented in the Assembly.

LESLIE KOJO CHRISTIAN (Ghana) said that he took the floor of the Assembly to express his strong solidarity, which had been demonstrated by the international community year after year, to call for the end of restrictions against a Member State by a Member State. Ghana remained committed to the principles enshrined in the Charter and international law, and therefore, steadfastly refrained from promulgating and enforcing laws whose extraterritorial effects adversely affected the sovereignty of other states, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation, he said.

He went on to underscore the excellent bilateral relations shared by Ghana and Cuba, which was based on their mutual goals and responsibilities towards a just and equitable world in the spirit of cooperation and multilateralism. Ghana’s longstanding cooperation with Cuba, most notably in the areas of health, education, and sports, continued to expand, he said. For example, an estimated 200 Cuban medical professionals currently worked in hospitals across his country, many of whom offered teaching facilities in some Ghanaian universities. Furthermore, Cuba continued to host educational scholarships to Ghanaian students, in order to study sectors that were deemed critical for the development agenda pursued by the Ghana Government. In closing, he stressed the debilitating toll that the 50-year-old embargo had taken on the well-being of the ordinary people of Cuba, including its women and children. To that end, in the spirit of “fellow feeling for our brothers in Cuba”, he called for the United States to end its embargo.

JOSEPH GODDARD (Barbados) called for respecting the rights of non-interference in internal affairs and peaceful relations among States, among others. Maintenance of peace and security required that all States adhere to the rule of law, including the principles enshrined in the Charter. For such reasons, Barbados opposed the unilateral imposition of measures that infringed on State sovereignty. He viewed the continued imposition of the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba as a violation of the Charter. Barbados fully embraced Cuba as a partner in the region and remained steadfast in that partnership. It respected Cuba’s full integration into the hemisphere. Measures to isolate that country, such as the embargo, would not foster change.

By way of example, he said the embargo inhibited the development of normal relations and impeded legitimate business opportunities among neighbouring States. The embargo’s impacts could be seen throughout all social and economic activities in Cuba, creating economic hardship. For its part, Barbados maintained excellent relations with both the United States and Cuba and, in that spirit, called for the immediate end to the embargo. He further urged the United States to engage in a constructive dialogue with Cuba. Such a step would remove a source of tension and improve prospects for peace, development and cooperation. His Government would vote in favour of the resolution.