Speakers Denounce Cuban Embargo as ‘Sad Echo’ of Failed Cold War Politics
DIEGO LIMERES (Argentina),
speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China,
noted that last year’s announcement by the United States on the
relaxation of travel restrictions and transfer of remittances had given
hope that steps were being taken in the right direction. But a year
later, it was clear that those measures had had only limited effect and
that the embargo was still in place. Largely unchanged, it continued to
impose severe economic and financial restrictions on Cuba that
negatively impacted the well-being of its people. Further, it
frustrated efforts towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
The embargo against Cuba
contravened the fundamental norms of international law, international
humanitarian law, the United Nations Charter and the norms and
principles governing peaceful relations among States, violating the
principles of the sovereign equality of States and of non-intervention
and non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs, as the Group of
77 and China had pointed out many times before.
At the second South-South
Summit in Doha in 2005, the Group had rejected the imposition of laws
and regulations with extraterritorial impact and all other forms of
coercive economic measures, including unilateral sanctions against
developing countries. Recalling that last year a large majority -
187 Member States - had voted in favour of the draft resolution
presented by Cuba, he said that the Group of 77 and China fully
supported the current text calling for an end to the embargo and urged
all Member States to do so.
MAGED A. ABDELAZIZ (Egypt),
speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, recalled that,
recently, “unexpected and profound” political changes in many parts of
the world had been sparked by an entrenched longing for justice that
had, for too long, been unduly denied. In that light, his delegation
believed that the application of the principle of justice should not be
confined to the national level, but should also extend to the
international arena. It should not only govern relations between
individuals, but also between Member States. For that reason, it was
“utterly troubling” that, to this day, “the screws of an unfair and
unwarranted blockade […] are still being tightened” against one of the
Movement’s members.
He said that in the past,
Washington claimed that it would reach out to the Cuban people and
engage with them, but such encouraging words had regrettably not been
translated into concrete actions. The punitive measures imposed against
Cuba had persisted, “and with them endures the suffering of its brave
people”. The direct and indirect damages caused by the embargo were
enormous, affecting all sectors of the economy including health,
nutrition, agriculture, banking, trade, investment and tourism.
Moreover, the unilateral blockade had an extended effect on companies
and citizens from third countries, thus violating their sovereign
rights. The Movement reiterated its deep concern over those harmful
impacts, he said, adding that they constituted additional arguments in
favour of the prompt elimination of sanctions.
It was astounding that the
embargo was maintained when a full 187 Member States had voted last
year in favour of the General Assembly resolution that called for its
immediate lifting, he said. “Why should the Cuban people continue to
suffer when the international community is almost unanimous in its
conviction that the cause of their anguish is unjustified and illegal?”
he asked, adding that there were no credible answers to that question.
The Movement once again urged the United States to immediately and
fully comply with all General Assembly resolutions calling for the end
of the embargo, and “once and for all” listen to the will of the
overwhelming majority of the international community.
MACHARIA KAMAU (Kenya),
speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that over the years the
General Assembly had categorically and overwhelmingly rejected the
imposition of laws and regulations with extraterritorial impact. Africa
shared the views expressed by the international community in its
continued opposition to sanctions against Cuba. The Assembly called
upon all States, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and
international law, to refrain from applying, and/or repeal, laws that
had extraterritorial impacts affecting the sovereignty of other States,
the legitimate interests of entities under their jurisdiction and the
freedom of trade and navigation.
Repeated calls by the
international community remained unheeded and the “sad and tragic”
decades-old United States embargo on Cuba had remained in force, he
said. In the report of the Secretary-General before the Assembly, the
majority of the United Nations Member States, including from the African
continent and various United Nations entities, categorically rejected
the imposition of the embargo on Cuba and called for its lifting.
Given their proximity, Cuba and the United States should be natural
partners in trade, commerce and investment. Given the large number of
Americans of Cuban extraction, Cuba and the United States should
enjoy warm and fraternal relations in social and cultural affairs among
their populations.
Yet, the potential of such
economic and commercial ties had sadly remained unrealized, he said,
adding: “Whatever the historical roots of this intergenerational
embargo, surely the time has come [for] nations to find the courage and
sense of global citizenry to overcome differences and nurture
coexistence.” In conclusion, he reiterated Africa’s opposition to
unilateral measures that impinged on the sovereignty of another country,
including attempts to extend the application of a country’s laws
extraterritorially to other sovereign nations. Africa once again called
for the complete and unequivocal lifting of sanctions and embargo
against Cuba.
JANINE COYE-FELSON ( Belize),
speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), declared the
group’s continued unequivocal opposition to the United States’
imposition of the economic, commercial and financial embargo against
Cuba which had been opposed by the overwhelming majority of the
international community for the past 19 consecutive years. The
unilateral imposition of extraterritorial laws on third States was
contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Charter, and the
embargo itself ran counter to the principles of multilateralism,
international law, sovereignty and free trade that the Organization
traditionally championed.
She said the stubborn
persistence of the punitive embargo, “apparently impervious to the
sustained chorus of international criticism - or logic”, was of
particular concern to CARICOM, which shared a history, culture,
solidarity and kinship with the Cuban people. Noting its regional
status as the most populous State of the Caribbean region, and an
integral part of the Pan-Caribbean process, she stressed that Caribbean
ties with Cuba had historical significance, cemented by years of
active cooperation at various levels, including in the areas of trade,
health care, infrastructure and human resource development.
Continuing, she said the
significance of the embargo on the Cuban economy continued to be of
great concern to CARICOM, and its humanitarian impact on the Cuban
people, especially in the health care and food areas, was particularly
saddening. The inability of Cuba to acquire much needed medical
equipment, spare parts and latest generation medications because of the
embargo continued to affect adversely the island nation’s health care
system. The situation had not been made any easier by the strengthening
and more frequent storms and hurricanes wrought by climate change and
Cuba’s geographical susceptibility to those natural disasters. Given
Cuba’s peaceful, generous and cooperative international stance, CARICOM
reiterated its support for the right of the Cuban people to
self-determination, in a manner beneficial to their social and economic
development. She remained hopeful, however, 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 that issue.
BYRGANYM AITIMOVA (Kazakhstan),
speaking on behalf of the Council of Ministers of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said that her delegation stood for the rights
of every nation to follow its own development, and in that context,
condemned unilateral acts that affected sovereignty and State
interests. “We do not agree with any national regulations that
infringe, impede or retard the development of any country, including [in
the] economic, commercial and financial spheres,” she said, underlining
that the imposition of arbitrary unilateral laws contradicted World
Trade Organization (WTO) rules prohibiting measures that hindered free
trade and shipping. Like the “overwhelming majority” of the
international community, she called for lifting the Cuban embargo in
line with the United Nations Charter and General Assembly resolutions.
JOSÉ LUIS CANCELA (Uruguay),
speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), regretted
that the “blockade policy” against Cuba continued unchanged, and had in
fact recorded an increase in the restrictions to Cuba’s financial
transactions with third countries, and that conditions were again
obstructing the way of a greater openness to a direct dialogue.
MERCOSUR and its Associated States believed that the embargo against
Cuba went against the principles of the Charter and contradicted the
rules of international law, mainly the equality of States,
non-intervention in domestic affairs, peaceful settlement of disputes,
as well as the rules of the multilateral trade system and those that
obliged the members of the WTO.
He said the embargo, which
was also against the principles of justice and human rights,
represented a collective punishment, created shortages and suffering to
the population, limited and delayed development, and seriously harmed
the Cuban economy. Thus, as a matter of principle, MERCOSUR rejected
unilateral and extraterritorial measures and in that sense, condemned
the application of coercive unilateral measures against free trade,
which caused an irremediable damage to the people’s welfare and
obstructed the process of regional integration. The economic,
commercial and financial embargo imposed against Cuba was an example
of obsolete policies that did not have a place in today’s world, he
added.
H. E. AHAMED, Minister of State for External Affairs of India,
aligning with the Group of 77 and China, as well as the Non-Aligned
Movement, said the Assembly had repeatedly rejected the imposition of
laws with extraterritorial impact and all other forms of coercive
economic measures. It also had called on States to respect the Charter
and international law yet despite that, the United States’ embargo
against Cuba remained in full force, which severely undermined the
credibility of the United Nations. Indeed, the embargo had brought
immense suffering for Cubans and had transgressed a sovereign State’s
right to development.
Moreover, it had adversely
affected Cuba’s economic prosperity, he said, by denying it access to
the United States’ market, investment, technology and financial
services, as well as to scientific, educational, cultural and sporting
institutions. The embargo’s extraterritorial application also had
severely impacted health care, a Millennium Development Goal, as well as
health assistance to developing countries. There was huge potential to
strengthen economic and commercial ties. Steps taken this year by the
United States to reduce restrictions on travel and remittances were
positive developments, but they were far from enough to make a
fundamental change. India joined others in calling for an immediate
end to the Cuban embargo. He supported the resolution.
JUAN CARLOS ALURRALDE ( Bolivia)
said that the Cold War fear of nuclear attacks had largely ended, but
other issues – including the threat of climate change, and others – “now
strike fear in our hearts.” He called on the United States to recall
the time of John F. Kennedy, in which an American President had
supported the right of the German people to determine their own fate and
development. Indeed, today’s United States President should say “I am
Cuban”, in the way that Kennedy had declared “I am a Berliner”.
Those that claimed to
support democracy were denying the right to democracy in the Assembly
Hall today, he continued. How long would the world wait for that State
to change its attitude? It was crucial that the United States
adhere to the wishes of the vast majority of those in the room. For
those reasons, among others, Bolivia fully supported the draft
resolution currently before the Assembly.
LUIS-ALFONSO DE ALBA ( Mexico)
said that the draft resolution before the Assembly reflected, for the
twentieth consecutive year, the international community’s rejection of
the embargo imposed against Cuba. Mexico was opposed to the use of
coercive measures that ran counter to the principles of international
law, as well as those of the Charter. That blockade blatantly
contradicted negotiations, diplomacy and dialogue as ways to resolve
disputes between States. Many United Nations agencies and bodies,
alongside the report currently before the Assembly, had highlighted the
negative effects of he embargo – both those that directly affected the
Cuban people and those which had an indirect impact on third party
States.
For those reasons, Mexico
had supported all resolutions against the United States’ unilateral
measures. It continued to support the inclusion of Cuba in dialogue
on economic, financial and commercial matters at the international
level. Mexico’s geographical proximity helped it to understand the
plight of Cuba. Additionally, he said, Mexico felt strongly that
multilateralism remained the best way to resolve disputes and to ensure
peaceful coexistence between States. Once again, the near-universal
rejection of the embargo showed that the time was ripe for lifting that
blockade.
JORGE VALERO ( Venezuela)
endorsed the statements by the representatives of Egypt on behalf of
the Non-Aligned Movement, Argentina on behalf of the Group of 77 and
China, and Uruguay on behalf of the Southern Common Market
(MERCOSUR). He echoed the fact that Member States had made a
near-universal call from the Assembly to end the embargo against Cuba,
which, for more than 50 years, had sought to restrict the right of that
country’s people to decide their own fate. That was an “unequivocal
sign” that it was necessary to defend the political independence of
States, and the fundamental purposes of the United Nations. It was
shameful that the call was ignored year after year.
In that regard, Venezuela
supported the various statements on Cuba that had been approved by
several groups and forums worldwide. It was important to remember that a
number of Cuban citizens – namely Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labaňino, Antonio Guerrerro and Fernando Gonzalez Llort
- remained detained in the United States for defending their homeland
against terrorist attacks. It was also necessary to remember Rene
Gonzalez, who had been released but was forced to remain in the United
States. Under the embargo, legislation such as the Torricelli Act
and the Helms-Burton Act restricted trade and imposed restrictions
against entrepreneurs who wished to invest in Cuba.
However, the blockade was
not an “abstract device imposed against a Government”, but had a daily
impact on the lives of women, men and children. It negatively affected
the quality of life of sick people, who were denied medical items whose
sale was prohibited in Cuba. It prevented the import of building
materials that were needed to make repairs. Despite those challenges,
Cuba had sustained a generous amount of support to neighbouring and
other countries. For those reasons, he demanded the end to the blockade
and to the imposition of international double standards. “Let us stop
allowing the condemnation of the weak,” he stressed, “and the toleration
of violations committed by the imperialists of the North”.
WANG MIN ( China)
said that for 19 years, the Assembly had adopted, by an overwhelming
majority, resolutions on the need to end the Cuban embargo, urging all
countries to abide by the Charter and international law, and to repeal
measures with extraterritorial effect. Regrettably, those texts had not
been implemented and the Cuban embargo had yet to be lifted, which
severely violated the Charter and inflicted enormous economic and
financial loss on Cuba. The embargo had impeded efforts to eradicate
poverty and violated Cubans’ basic human rights to food, health and
education.
China had always believed
that countries should develop mutual relations on the basis of
upholding the Charter and respecting the right of others to choose their
development paths, he said, adding that China opposed unilateral
sanctions imposed by military, political, economic or other means.
Noting that China and Cuba had maintained “normal” economic, trade
and personal exchanges, he said such mutually beneficial cooperation
continued to grow. Dialogue and harmonious coexistence were the
mainstream of international relations, and in that context, he hoped the
United States would follow the tenets of the Charter and end its
embargo as soon as possible. He also hoped the relationship between the
United States and Cuba would improve with a view to promoting
regional development. China would support today’s resolution.
MOURAD BENMEHIDI ( Algeria)
said the consecutive annual adoption by an overwhelming majority of
Assembly members of a similar resolution calling for the lifting of the
embargo against Cuba reflected the profound wish of the international
community to put an end to that situation, which had lasted far too
long. Algeria had always condemned the imposition of unilateral acts,
extraterritorial regulations impeding the development of any country and
all forms of coercive economic and trade measures, such as the
economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba, which was
openly contrary to international law and the purposes and principles of
the Charter. Every Member State should respect principles of the
Charter, including the sovereign equality of States, territorial
integrity and non-intervention in the internal affairs of any other
State. It was well-established that this blockade affected Cuba’s
economic growth and impeded its human development.
In that regard, it had
caused huge economic damage to Cuba, and created economic hardship,
daily affecting the well-being of the Cuban people. Those consequences
were exacerbated by the adverse effects of the current global and
financial crisis, and the energy and food crisis that had seriously
compromised Cuba’s efforts to improve its level of development.
According to estimates by the Cuban Government, confirmed by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the cumulative direct and indirect
losses to the Cuban economy over 50 years were more than $100 billion.
In accordance with the long-standing position of the Non-Aligned
Movement on the issue, Algeria rejected the use of economic measures of
coercion and extraterritorial applications of laws imposed on
developing countries, and urged the United States Government to end the
embargo against Cuba.
DOCTOR MASHABANE ( South Africa)
said the question of ending the embargo against Cuba had continued to
be a problem for the United Nations despite many calls to eliminate the
measures. The time had come for the embargo to be lifted, and the
people of Cuba continued to bear the brunt of the sanctions. The
blockade was a violation of the sovereign equality of States,
non-intervention and non-interference in domestic affairs. It was a
violation of international law and showed disregard of the United
Nations Charter. Thus, South Africa joined the majority of countries
expressing opposition to all aspects of the blockade. The situation was
further exacerbated by the global financial crisis, food crisis and
climate change. The embargo directly hindered the Cuban economic
recovery, and negatively impacted tourism. The damage was estimated to
exceed $975 billion in the future. South Africa rejected
reinforcement of the sanctions.
South Africa was deeply
concerned over the widening of the extraterritorial nature of the
embargo and rejected the reinforcement of the measures aimed at
tightening it, as well as all other recent measures carried out by the
United States against Cuba. His delegation condemned the seizing by
the United States of over $4.2 million, in January 2011, of funding
from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which had
been earmarked for the implementation of cooperation projects with
Cuba. He supported the content of the press release of 18 October
2011 by the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba to the United
Nations concerning the intensification of sanctions and extraterritorial
persecution of citizens, institutions and companies in third countries
that established economic, commercial, financial, scientific and
technical ties with Cuba.
South Africa was
strongly opposed to the actions of the United States regarding fines
levied against foreign banking institutions for having conducted
operations with Cuba. In an attempt to grow trade with Cuba, South
Africa was finalizing its proposals to offer a credit line of
$10 million to Cuba. That would be a breakthrough in relations for
trade cooperation. He called on all Member States to support the
lifting of the United States’ embargo against Cuba.
LE HOAI TRUNG ( Viet Nam)
recalled that, by the end of the current meeting, the Assembly would
have overwhelmingly adopted for 20 consecutive years a resolution on the
issue of ending the Cuban embargo. Viet Nam shared the view of the
international community that the United States should end the embargo
against Cuba, which was a peace-loving nation, for strong legal,
political, economic and humanitarian reasons. The General Assembly had
reaffirmed that the policies and measures in pursuit of the embargo,
including the “Helms-Burton Act”, went against international law and the
purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. “The basis of
these policies and measures is a violation of the right of a people to
self-determination,” he stressed, adding that they had the right, among
other things, to determine their political system and path of
development.
Additionally, he said, the
embargo had serious and illegal extraterritorial effects on the
sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of persons under
their jurisdiction, their freedom of trade and navigation. The
Government of Cuba estimated that the loss and damages caused by the
embargo amounted to nearly $1 trillion. The suffering of the Cuban
people, however, transcended that “staggering figure”. For those
reasons, Heads of State or Government had reiterated their call to end
the embargo in the Outcome Document of the fifteenth Non-Aligned Summit
held in Egypt in 2009, he said. Similarly, the discussions taking
place today were consistent with the urge for cooperation and dialogue
and the General Assembly’s current theme of peaceful settlement of
disputes.
CAMILLO M. GONSALVES ( St. Vincent and the Grenadines)
said that “half a century ago, the world was witness to the ‘Cuban
Spring’: an indigenous and popular uprising against a corrupt and
brutal dictator”. The Cuban people, unassisted by foreign military
forces, had cast off the shackles of rapacious exploitation and chose
for themselves a new and uniquely adapted path of progress, global
citizenship and development that was measured not by the levels of
corporate or individual excess, but on the fulfilment of the needs of
its citizens, particularly the poor. Some States had not greeted that
“Cuban Spring” with the same enthusiasm with which they welcomed,
assisted or instigated other, subsequent revolutionary movements.
Noting that the scale and
scope of the Cuban embargo had no parallel in the modern world, he
aligned with those calling for it to end. He said no one in the
Assembly Hall had the right to tell the United States how to conduct
its foreign policy or who its friends should be. At the same time, all
Member States were obliged to uphold the Charter and reject instances
where national foreign policy decisions “morphed into violations of
international law”.
The embargo had been an
“unmitigated failure” and had only caused suffering for the Cuban
people. While other unjust and antiquated structures had fallen, it
alone remained as the last relic of a Cold War that otherwise only
existed in the history books. “[I]n an interconnected world of open
borders, free movement of people, goods and capital, how can the
architects of globalization simultaneously legislate the isolation of
one State, or place extraterritorial restrictions on commerce, global
trade and the movement of individuals?” he asked. Citing President
Obama’s inaugural address to the Assembly on demonstrating that
international law was not an empty promise, he urged him to heed the
overwhelming voice of the international community.
NIKOLAI OVSYANKO ( Belarus)
said that the overwhelming majority of Member States had been demanding
the end of the economic, commercial and financial embargo against
Cuba for decades, regarding it as an uncivilized and unconstructive
means of resolving international disagreements. Unilateral sanctions
negatively impacted the lives of the Cuban people, particularly given
the economic and financial crises in the world today, which appeared to
be about to embark on a second wave.
Noting that the blockade
contradicted international law and United Nations decisions, he said
that in the current system of international relations, there was no
place for unilateral sanctions or other unilateral economic measures to
pressure sovereign States. Nations had the right to determine their own
developmental paths. He hoped that the voice of the General Assembly
would be heard as it passed the resolution for the twentieth time.
YUSRA KHAN ( Indonesia)
called for the conclusion of the unilateral economic, commercial and
financial embargo imposed against Cuba. The measures undermined the
principles of the Charter and of international law, as well as the
rights of people to life, well-being and development. In addition,
although imposed unilaterally, the embargo impacted the economic and
commercial interests and relations of third countries. It had also
severely affected the daily welfare of Cuban citizens and posed an
unnecessary burden to the attainment of the Millennium Development
Goals.
Since the embargo had
initially been imposed, much had changed, he continued. Globalization
had created conditions for true global solidarity and partnership among
nations. Lifting the embargo would be in keeping with the spirit of the
times. “[T]he time is ripe for relations between the two main parties
to be transformed through constructive engagement,” he said. While
encouraged by the small, but meaningful changes that had recently
occurred, including the easing of travel restrictions to Cuba and the
removal of obstacles to transfer of remittances, he called on all
countries to adhere to the principles of equality, mutual respect,
peaceful co-existence and good-neighbourliness and respect for human
rights.
COLLIN BECK (Solomon Islands),
associating himself with the statement of the Group of 77 and China,
said that his delegation would again vote with the majority of United
Nations Members in support of the resolution to end the blockade against
Cuba. He asked the United States, which had “absolute power” within
the multilateral system, to examine its actions towards the people of
Cuba through the lens of humanity and to renew its friendship with that
country.
In a changing world, the
rights, freedoms and laws that were frequently spoken of should be
upheld with respect for States to adopt their own political systems, he
said. As a small island developing country, Solomon Islands believed
in multilateralism and would vote in support of the resolution.
VITALY I. CHURKIN ( Russian Federation)
said his country’s position on the resolution was well-known and
remained unchanged: “we express total solidarity with the overwhelming
majority of members of the international community who are strongly
condemning the trade and economic embargo against Cuba”. The
anti-Cuba blockade had lasted almost half a century and had clearly been
unable to influence Cuba’s sovereign choice of development model.
The only consequences of the sanctions had been deteriorated living
standards for Cubans, artificial barriers to economic growth and
infringements on third-country interests.
The United States’
unilateral, restrictive actions against Cuba had only created the
opposite effect of what their instigators had intended during the Cold
War, he said, adding that the current United States Administration had
raised expectations about changes to Washington’s policy but had made
only minimum steps. He hoped the United States’ decision to end
restrictions on visits by United States citizens to family in Cuba as
well as on remittances and postal orders would be followed by steps to
normalize relations with Cuba and to lift the embargo. His Government
strongly believed such moves would foster progressive social and
economic reforms by the Cuban leadership. The Russian Federation
would vote in favour of today’s text.
No comments:
Post a Comment