‘Archaic, Punitive’ Embargo Must be Consigned to History Books, Say Speakers,
as General Assembly, for Twenty-First Year, Demands End to Cuba Blockade
13 November 2012
General Assembly Plenary
35th and 36th Meetings (AM & PM)
Statements
MOURAD BENMEHIDI (Algeria),
speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China,
said that 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. Furthermore, its continued imposition violated the principles
of the sovereign equality of States and of non-intervention and
non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs. The measures
announced by the United States Government two years ago, which related
to a certain relaxation of restrictions on travel and transfer of
remittances, had had a “very limited effect” and did not change the
framework of laws, regulations and provisions of the embargo, which was
still in place, he added.
The deepening impact of
the ongoing global economic and financial crisis and the continued
embargo would continue to further aggravate hardships for the Cuban
people, he went on to say. In addition, the embargo frustrated efforts
towards the achievement of all the internationally agreed development
goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, and negatively
affected regional cooperation in the area. Today, the Group once again
reiterated its longstanding and principled position on the matter of the
embargo, and recalled the Ministerial Declaration of the thirty-sixth
annual meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in New York in
September, to the effect that the Ministers “firmly rejected” the
imposition of laws and regulations with extraterritorial impact and all
other forms of coercive measures. They had also called on the
international community neither to recognize those measures nor apply
them, he said.
JOSEPH GODDARD (Barbados),
speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), noted that this was the
twenty-first consecutive occasion that the Assembly was meeting to
raise the sustained chorus of opposition to the United States’
imposition of the economic, commercial and financial embargo against
Cuba. While in some parts of the world, twenty-first “birthdays” were
especially commemorated, the twenty-first year of adoption of the annual
resolution on the Cuban embargo should instead give that Assembly pause
for reflection. The embargo had persisted for too long in spite of the
unambiguous reprove of an overwhelming majority of Member States, as
demonstrated by the annual adoption of the resolution before delegates.
He went to stress that
CARICOM member States had camaraderie with Cuba, which had remained
cordial and resilient even through a continually evolving hemispheric
and international geo-political landscape. Cuba maintained embassies
in all independent countries of the Community and continued to show
itself as an integral part of the region. The Community and Cuba had
developed and enjoyed mutually beneficial programmes of cooperation and
trade in several key areas including physical education and sports,
accounting, natural sciences, humanities, economy, special education,
health and medicine. CARICOM States also continued to value and enjoy
long-established, warm and friendly relations with the United States.
It was in that spirit that the Community urged the United States to
heed the calls of the international community to bring an end to the
embargo.
ANTONIO PEDRO MONTEIRO LIMA (Cape Verde),
speaking on behalf of the African Group and aligning with the Group of
77 developing countries and China, said it was “inconceivable” for
African countries to remain silent in the face of the adverse
consequences of the longstanding embargo against Cuba. By a resolution
adopted at the African Union Summit in July, leaders had reissued a call
inviting the United States to lift that embargo, he said; the Group’s
vote today in favour of the Assembly’s annual resolution would be
another step in advancing that call. Indeed, he said, quoting the
famous statesman Winston Churchill, “criticism may not be agreeable, but
it is necessary”. Criticism played the same role as pain in the human
body, bringing attention to the fact that “things are not right”, he
added.
Furthermore, the Assembly
“status quo” on the resolution ran contrary to the pursuit of a more
equitable and just world, as well as the progress of Cuba towards the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and regional
integration. “The path of history today is for those who choose
openness”, he said. He quoted Nelson Mandela to the effect that “to be
free is not merely to cast off ones chains, but to live in a way that
respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ ( Chile)
said on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States
(CELAC) that the commercial, economic and financial embargo imposed on
Cuba was contrary to the letter, spirit, principles and purposes of the
United Nations Charter and international law. The Community was
concerned about the extraterritorial effects of the embargo that
affected the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of
entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade
and navigation. The embargo, commenced in 1959 had continued to this
day and had transformed into a strict system of unilateral measures,
which had continued over time creating huge injustices for the Cuban
people. In itself, the unilateral measure was a contradiction with the
multilateralism, the openness and the dialogue promoted by the Charter.
The Community was in
favour of adoption of the resolution before the Assembly. He emphasized
the inconsistency that existed between the application of unilateral
measures, which had no backing in international law, and the letter,
spirit, principles and purpose of the Charter, urging the United
States to make necessary adjustments to its international behaviour in
that regard and align its legislation with the Charter of the United
Nations.
BYRGANYM AITIMOVA (Kazakhstan),
speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC),
noted that the item had been on the Assembly’s agenda for 20 years with
little progress to record. Guided by the principles of international
law, the OIC upheld the right of every nation to follow its own unique
path of development and therefore condemned any unilateral action, which
affected the sovereignty and interests of another State and its
people. Further, it did not agree with any external regulations that
infringed, impeded or delayed the development of any country, including
in the economic, commercial and financial spheres. Even measures meant
to relax restrictions had limited effect while the embargo remained in
place to the detriment of the Cuban people.
The embargo frustrated
efforts toward achieving the Millennium Goals, she continued, impeding
poverty eradication, and violating the basic human rights to food,
health and education, humanitarian assistance and overall national
progress. That already harsh situation was further aggravated by the
effects of climate change to which Cuba’s geographical location made
it particularly vulnerable. She went on to stress that the embargo
contradicted the regulations and directions of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), which prohibited the adoption of measures likely to
hinder international free trade and shipping, and the widest possible
partnership between two partners. She joined “the overwhelming majority
of the international community” in calls to lift the embargo against
Cuba.
MARIA LUIZA RIBEIRO VIOTTI ( Brazil),
speaking on behalf of Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said that the
Group had been founded on the principles of interdependence and good
neighbourly relations. Alongside its Latin American neighbours,
MERCOSUR showed respect for the sovereignty of States and for
international law, and it viewed that the embargo ran contrary to the
principles of the Unite Nations Charter and international law. In
particular, she said, it violated the principle of non-interference in
the affairs of other States. The embargo also ran contrary to the
principles of justice and human rights, limited and delayed social and
economic progress and inhibited the achievement of the Millennium Goals
and other development targets.
MERCOSUR therefore
regretted the fact that the unilaterally imposed embargo continued
unabated, she said. MERCOSUR rejected, in principle, all unilateral and
extra-territorial measures, which caused harm to peoples and obstructed
regional integration. By once again reaffirming its support to the
present resolution, her delegation would reiterate its commitment to
multilateralism as a legitimate instrument for the settling of disputes
and a way to promote cooperation and understanding between peoples.
Indeed, she concluded, the embargo was “no more than an example of
obsolete policies which have no place in today’s world.”
MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (Iran),
speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, recalled that the delegation, at
its most recent Summit, held in Tehran, had reiterated its call to the
United States to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial
embargo against Cuba, a measure which was causing huge material and
economic damage to the people of that island nation. Iran was
concerned about the widening of the extraterritorial nature of the
embargo and rejected the reinforcement of the measures adopted by the
United States. The embargo had caused and would continue to cause a
high degree of adverse impact on the well-being of the people of
Cuba. The direct and indirect damage was enormous. The embargo
affected all crucial sectors of the economy, including those most vital
for the well being of the people there, such as public health, nutrition
and agriculture, as well as banking, trade, investment and tourism.
He said that the Movement
saluted the Cuban people for what they had achieved so far, including
significant progress in such areas as education and health care, despite
the huge difficulties. Yet, the embargo continued to impede
socio-economic advances and created unnecessary economic hardship. The
embargo denied Cuba access to markets, development aid from
international financial institutions and technology transfers, which
were all important for the development of Cuba. The United States
had in the past claimed that it would reach out to the Cuban people but
those words had regrettably not been translated into action.
LUIS-ALFONSO DE ALBA (Mexico),
joining with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said
that today’s meeting once again demonstrated the international
community’s “overwhelming” opposition to the economic, commercial and
financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba. Mexico
once again expressed its opposition to the measure, and reiterated its
rejection of the use of coercive actions, which ran contrary to the
principles of the United Nations Charter, produced severe humanitarian
impacts and which were a rejection of diplomacy and dialogue as a way to
resolve disputes between States. There were many harmful effects of
the embargo in sensitive sectors, which had a direct impact on the
citizens of Cuba as well as a negative effect on third countries.
Indeed, the international
community must not forget that political, economic or military sanctions
imposed on States could only emanate from the United Nations Security
Council or the General Assembly. Therefore, Mexico had supported all
measures against the embargo in a number of forums, and would continue
to provide its support for the inclusion of Cuba in global economic
dialogue. Dialogue and negotiation continued to be the ideal way to
resolve disputes and ensure peaceful cooperation between States, he
stressed. Mexico’s proximity to Cuba and its relationship with that
country suggested the urgent need for the embargo to come to an end;
Mexico would therefore vote in favour of the resolution currently before
the Assembly, he said.
MANJEEV SINGH PURI ( India)
said the Secretary-General’s report was illustrative of the detrimental
impact the embargo had had on international efforts to undertake
socio-economic advancement in Cuba. The United Nations Resident
Coordinator in Havana had noted the high cost of the embargo and its
negative impact on development and humanitarian cooperation implemented
by the United Nations system. There was, however, huge potential for
strengthening economic and commercial ties between Cuba and the
United States, especially in tourism.
Taking advantage of
limited openings under its Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement
Act of 2000, the United States had become the largest exporter of
agricultural products to Cuba, he noted. America’s Congressional
efforts to relax or lift the embargo had lent further credence to the
annual United Nations resolution calling for the full lifting of the
measure. People-to-people contacts between the two nations held immense
possibilities for fostering better understanding. The steps taken by
the United States in January 2011 to reduce restrictions on travel and
remittances to Cuba were positive developments but “far from making a
fundamental change” in the complex framework of laws and regulations,
which were part of the embargo against Cuba, he added.
IDRIS HASSAN ( Sudan)
joined, at the outset, with the positions put forward by the Group of
77 developing countries and China, the Non-Aligned Movement, the
Organization for Islamic Cooperation and the African Group of States.
He extended his country’s solidarity with the people of Cuba, and
condemned the unilateral coercive embargo imposed by the United States
against that country, which was a “flagrant violation” of the human
rights of Cubans as well as international law. The continuation of that
embargo required all Member States to exert efforts on the United
States administration, as the embargo threatened the dignity and
economic progress of a United Nations Member State.
Sudan had lost precious
resources as a result of similar measures imposed by the United
States; he went on, calling on Member States to apply ameliorative
actions, and to accelerate reform of the Security Council. Indeed, it
should not be possible for one country to have the right of the veto and
to threaten international peace and security for all. He called on the
United States to immediately lift the embargos on Cuba, Sudan and
all other countries. That “aggression” was a crime and it had to be put
to an end, he stressed, as it alienated developing countries and
hindered them from achieving the Millennium Development Goal targets and
sustainable development.
VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation)
expressed disagreement with and rejection of the economic, commercial
and financial embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States. The
position of the Russian Government on that matter was well known and had
not changed. It condemned such a measure by the United States, which
was an “outdated relic of the Cold War era”. It not only had hindered
Cuba’s development model but had resulted in the worsening of the
living conditions of the Cuban people.
The United States had
eased restrictions, for instance, allowing American citizens to visit
family members and relatives in Cuba, he noted. The easing of those
restrictions must be replicated in other areas as well. Guided by
non-discrimination and other principles, the Russian Federation called
for an early repeal of the embargo and urged the United States to
reduce its confrontational approach.
MEUTYA VIADA HAFID ( Indonesia)
said that the Assembly was convening once again to consider the
51 year-old unilateral policy banning economic, commercial and financial
activity with Cuba. Imposed during the Cold War, that embargo had
cost the people of Cuba dearly and impacted the economic and
commercial relations of third countries. Further, the sanctions
exceeded the jurisdiction of national legislation and encroached on the
sovereignty of other States that dealt with Cuba. Times had changed
since 1961, she said; globalization had created conditions for true
global solidarity and partnership among the community of nations.
The continued imposition
of the embargo against Cuba violated the principles of the sovereign
equality of States, and of non-intervention and non-interference in each
other’s domestic affairs, she said, and clearly did not conform to the
United Nations Charter. It created an unwanted standoff instead of
dialogue to normalize relations, with both political complications, and
economic, commercial and financial hardships that were unjustifiable on
humanitarian grounds. She urged renunciation of extraterritorial laws
and measures that affected the sovereignty of other States, the lawful
interests of their subjects, or of other persons under their
jurisdiction, and freedom of trade and navigation. She called for the
immediate cessation of the embargo.
JULIO ESCALONA OJEDA ( Venezuela)
recalled that, in October 2011, the Assembly had approved – for the
twentieth time - a resolution against the unilateral embargo imposed by
the United States against Cuba. In that historic vote, 186 countries
had expressed their support for the Cuban people, while only two
countries had opposed it. Venezuela had always supported such
resolutions and had repeatedly denounced the “brutal” embargo. It also
stressed its rejection of all unilateral measures which had
extraterritorial effects, which contravened the principles of the United
Nations Charter and violated principles of free navigation, among other
laws. Indeed, the “Helms-Burton Act” and similar laws were an affront
to people all over the world. The Act undermined the human rights of
the Cuban people - a “despicable policy” that punished the Cuban
population with the aim of bringing about a change in leadership in
Cuba. “[They] will not achieve this”, he stressed of those measures.
While the embargo was an
expression of a “barbarous” policy the Cuban people had nevertheless
overcome that unjust practice in a “stoic and heroic” way, moving
forward with the principle of solidarity even beyond their own borders.
The “advocates of imperialism” maintained that Cuba was a threat to
the region, which was a “massive lie”. Cuba had, on the contrary,
been an element of support and hope in the area of solidarity with
States, contributing to the social well being of many other countries.
United States President Barack Obama had managed to connect with the
majority feeling of the Latin American population living in the United
States, and he should continue by finally ending the longstanding
embargo. If the new United States Government moved forward in that
regard, President Obama would be “acting on the right side of history”,
he stressed in that respect.
WANG MIN ( China),
said that the commercial and financial embargo against Cuba imposed by
the United States had inflicted enormous economic and financial loses
on the island nation. Cuba’s economic losses directly resulting from
the embargo had exceeded $108 billion by December 2011. Taking into
account the depreciation of the United States dollar against the
price of gold in the international market, the figure would increase to
$1.066 trillion. The measure had caused shortage of commodities and
huge suffering to the Cuban people. It also violated their fundamental
human rights including the rights to food, health and education as well
as their right to development. That also affected interactions between
other countries and Cuba and impaired the interests and sovereignty of
third countries.
The embargo seriously
violated the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and
the relevant General Assembly resolutions, and had met the firm
opposition of the vast majority of Member States. “The call of the
international community is getting louder and louder”, he said,
demanding that the United States Government change its policy towards
Cuba. China and Cuba had maintained normal economic, trade and
personnel exchanges. The friendly and mutually-beneficial cooperation
in various fields between two countries had been growing. China hoped
that the relationship between the United States and Cuba would
improve so as to promote the stability and development in Latin America
and the Caribbean region.
MOOTAZ AHMADEIN KHALIL (Egypt),
aligning with the statements delivered on behalf of the Group of
77 developing countries and China, the Non-Aligned Movement, the African
Group and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, recalled that a
little more than 50 years ago, an unjust and unjustifiable unilateral
embargo had been imposed by the United States against Cuba. Although
the world had profoundly changed since, the “bloqueo” had persisted, in
total violation of multilateralism, the norms of international law, and
the principles of the Charter and was “an anachronism from a bygone
era”. He said the embargo against Cuba was the longest and toughest
system of sanctions ever applied against any country in modern history
and must be lifted. Last year, 186 countries had voted in favour of
General Assembly resolution 66/6 – the twentieth resolution adopted on
the issue. Lifting the embargo was not only the Cuban people’s plea,
but was also the request of the overwhelming majority of Member States.
He praised the Cuban
people for their achievements under difficult circumstances, noting that
despite the economic and social hardship caused by the embargo, they
had made significant progress in many areas, including education, health
care and gender equality. At a time when peoples in his region were
bravely fighting for freedom and justice, and some of them, like in his
country, were establishing the foundations of a genuine democracy, it
was troubling that the United States continued to adopt coercive
measures to prevent a neighbouring nation from freely deciding its own
political and economic system. Stressing that cooperation and
engagement were more effective than isolation and estrangement, he said
it was high time for the embargo to end. The re-election of President
Obama last week offered the American administration a fresh opportunity
to rectify the historic injustice inflicted on Cuba, he said,
expressing hope that the opportunity to do so would not be missed.
DIEGO MOREJÓN ( Ecuador)
said that in an expression of solidarity, his Government had provided
humanitarian aid to the victims and countries in need following the
recent hurricane. Expressing concern about the United States’
Helms-Burton Act and its extraterritorial effects, Ecuador wished that
the 21 resolutions on the Cuban blockade would finally be implemented
in their entirety.
A clause in Ecuador’s
Constitution condemned interventions in internal affairs. The current
text before the Assembly clearly condemned violations of free trade and
navigation, which were enshrined in the United Nations Charter and
international law. It was unacceptable to see the rising figures for
the cost of the embargo in development. The blockade limited the
attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and other internationally
agreed targets. Aligning with the regional groups that had spoken thus
far, Ecuador called for the repudiation and full lifting of the
“infamous and shameful” blockade.
SACHA SERGIO LLORENTTY SOLÍZ ( Bolivia)
said that the report of the Secretary-General highlighted, once again,
the global rejection of the economic and financial embargo which had
been imposed “in an arbitrary and unilateral way” against Cuba by the
United States Government. Bolivia firmly rejected the use of
unilateral measures by any State seeking to impose embargoes that had
humanitarian impacts. “This blockade is unjust. It’s illegal. It’s
extra-territorial”, he stressed, adding that it violated the principles
of the United Nations Charter. Further, the embargo contravened the
rights of the Cuban people to self-determination and development, among
others.
“The United States is
not listening to the global appeal to put an end to this injustice”, he
continued. Such an attitude was one which represented “genocide’.
Bolivia condemned the coercive nature of the embargo, which also
affected other countries around the world. It also commended the
courage of the revolutionary people of Cuba, which despite the effects
of the embargo was moving forward, and recognized the efforts of the
Cuban people to cooperate with Bolivia and other countries. Indeed,
while some countries sent armies and soldiers with great weapons, Cuba
sent “armies” of doctors and teachers to the most needed areas of Latin
America. Cuba proclaimed solidarity, life, dignity and human value,
he said, adding that, if the United States in fact defended equality
and freedom, its President should immediately lift the “inhuman” embargo
against that country.
LE HOAI TRUNG ( Viet Nam)
noted that while 20 annual Assembly resolutions had called for an end
to the blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba, the measure
remained in place and continued to enforce severe economic and
financial restrictions on Cuba. The impact on Cuban lives and
development caused by the embargo exceeded 1 trillion dollars, he said,
adding that the majority of the international community opposed it on
the grounds that it contravened the fundamental norms of international
law, international humanitarian law and the fundamental principles and
purposes of the Charter, especially those of sovereign equality,
non-interference and self-determination.
He supported the outcome
of the Sixteenth Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, which had
reiterated the need to end the embargo. He also stressed his support
for the statement by the “G-77” Ministers of Foreign Affairs at their
36th Annual Meeting this year, which had rejected all forms of coercive
economic measures, including unilateral sanctions, against developing
countries and called for their urgent elimination to ensure that the
principles of the United Nations Charter were not undermined and that
freedom of trade and investment was protected. He added that he would
vote in favour of the resolution.
BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba,
referred to a 1960 quote by then-Under-Secretary of State of the
United States, Lester D. Mallory, who had written that the commercial,
economic and financial embargo against Cuba was intended “to cause
disenchantment and disaffection […] to weaken the economic life of Cuba
[…] to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger,
desperation and overthrow of Government.” That had been the vision that
embodied the inhumane, failed and anachronistic policy of eleven
successive United States Governments, he added.
In 2008, then presidential
candidate Barack Obama had electrified the American people, and after
being elected, had announced “a new beginning with Cuba”. However,
the reality of the past four years had been characterized by a
persistent tightening of the blockade, particularly its
extra-territorial dimensions, despite the fact that the General Assembly
had approved, by a consistent and overwhelming majority, 20 consecutive
resolutions calling for an end to the policy.
“Keeping this policy in
force is not in the national interest of the United States”, he said.
Quite the contrary, it harmed the interest of that country’s citizens
and companies, especially in times of economic crisis and high
unemployment. The blockade also harmed the legitimate interests of and
discriminated against the Cuban emigration that had settled in the
United States, which overwhelmingly favoured the normalization of
relations with its home country. Moreover, there was no legitimate or
moral reason to maintain the blockade, which was “anchored in the Cold
War”. Indeed, it “is just a weapon in the hands of an ever more
exiguous, isolated, violent and arrogant minority”, he said.
He went on to describe
some of the fines and repercussions imposed against various parties who
had allegedly violated the blockade, as well as the human damage caused
by it, which was “huge and impossible to calculate”. It caused
hardships, shortages and difficulties that affected every family, every
boy and girl, every man and women, as well as those with disabilities,
senior citizens and the ill. In that regard, he told the story of
several hospitals that were unable to treat patients due to a lack of
the appropriate medicines, and of children who suffered such ills as the
loss of an eye due to retinal cancer because of the lack of appropriate
therapies. Given its express purpose and direct effects, the blockade
against Cuba qualified as an “act of genocide” according to Article
2(b) of the Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide of 1948, he stressed, adding that it was a “mass,
flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire
people.”
As was stated in the
Secretary-General’s report, the economic damage accumulated over more
than 50 years, until 2011, amounted to one trillion six billion
dollars. “Any sensible person could figure out the living standards and
development levels that we could have achieved if we had had those
resources available”, he added, calling the blockade one of the main
causes of Cuba’s economic problems and the major obstacle to its
economic and social development. It was an act of aggression - a
permanent threat to the stability of a country – and constituted a gross
violation of the rules that governed international trade, freedom of
navigation and the sovereign rights of States.
“President Obama has the
opportunity to start a new policy towards Cuba”, he said. It would be
a difficult task and he might face serious obstacles, but there was no
doubt that it would constitute a “historical legacy”. Today Cuba was
submitting to the United States Government a draft agenda for bilateral
dialogue aimed at moving towards the normalization of relations,
including such fundamental topics as the lifting of the blockade, Cuba’s
exclusion from the “arbitrary and illegal” list of terrorism-sponsoring
countries, and return of the territory occupied by the Guantanamo Naval
base, and others. An essential part of that agenda was the release of
the five Cuban anti-terrorists who remained imprisoned or retained in
the United States, he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment