#U.S. embargo against Cuba

[minnesotafollower]

Criticisms of the Recent U.N. General Assembly Resolution Against the U.S. Embargo of Cuba 

As discussed in a previous blog post, on October 30, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly passed Cuba’s resolution condemning the U.S. embargo pf the island (187 to 2 with 4 abstentions).The U.S. and Israel again voted against the resolution while the abstentions came from Moldova, Ukraine, Somalia and Venezuela.[1] Here now is a summary of some of the criticism of that resolution. U.S.-Cuba…

[zvaigzdelasas]

[H]undreds of legal experts and groups on Monday urged the global community—and the United States government in particular—"to comply with international law by ending the use of broad, unilateral coercive measures that extensively harm civilian populations."

In a letter to U.S. President Joe Biden, the jurists and legal groups wrote that "75 years ago, in the aftermath of one of the most destructive conflicts in human history, nations of the world came together in Geneva, Switzerland to establish clear legal limits on the treatment of noncombatants in times of war."

"One key provision... is the prohibition of collective punishment, which is considered a war crime," the letter continues. "We consider the unilateral application of certain economic sanctions to constitute collective punishment."

Suzanne Adely, president of the National Lawyers Guild—one of the letter's signatories—said in a statement that "economic sanctions cause direct material harm not only to the people living on the receiving end of these policies, but to those who rely on trade and economic relations with sanctioned countries."

"The legal community needs to push back against the narrative that sanctions are nonviolent alternatives to warfare and hold the U.S. Government accountable for violating international law every time it wields these coercive measures," she added.[...]

"Hundreds of millions of people currently live under such broad U.S. economic sanctions in some form, including in notable cases such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela," the letter notes. "The evidence that these measures can cause severe, widespread civilian harm, including death, is overwhelming. Broad economic sanctions can spark and prolong economic crises, hinder access to essential goods like food, fuel, and medicine, and increase poverty, hunger, disease, and even death rates, especially among children. Such conditions in turn often drive mass migration, as in the recent cases of Cuba and Venezuela."

For more than 64 years, the U.S. has imposed a crippling economic embargo on Cuba that had adversely affected all sectors of the socialist island's economy and severely limited Cubans' access to basic necessities including food, fuel, and medicines. The Cuban government claims the blockade cost the country's economy nearly $5 billion in just one 11-month period in 2022-23 alone. For the past 32 years, United Nations member states have voted overwhelmingly against the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Last year's vote was 187-2, with the U.S. and Israel as the only dissenters.

According to a 2019 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank based in Washington, D.C., as many as 40,000 Venezuelans died from 2017-18 to U.S. sanctions, which have made it much more difficult for millions of people to obtain food, medicine, and other necessities.

"Civilian suffering is not merely an incidental cost of these policies, but often their very intent," the new letter asserts. "A 1960 State Department memo on the embargo of Cuba suggested 'denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of government.'"

"Asked whether the Trump administration's sanctions on Iran were working as intended, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded that 'things are much worse for the Iranian people, and we're convinced that will lead the Iranian people to rise up and change the behavior of the regime,'" the signers added.

12 Aug 24

[mariacallous]

Ever since the MAGA movement engulfed the U.S. Republican Party, it has harbored two competing foreign-policy tendencies—a muscular internationalism and a neo-isolationist reluctance to intervene. That tension has played out on a number of issues, and it surfaced again over how to navigate Cuba policy—whether to take a more hard-line approach that would aim to topple the regime or settle for a less aggressive set of punitive actions without dramatically escalating sanctions. Judging by a statement of policy that President Donald Trump issued at the end of June, he appears to be siding with the pragmatists who want to keep Cuba on the back burner for now.

Just before departing for the Florida Everglades to open “Alligator Alcatraz,” his new detention camp for undocumented immigrants, Trump unveiled the fifth National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-5) of his second term—a comprehensive statement of his policy toward Cuba.

During his first few months in office, Trump took a number of piecemeal measures foreshadowing a hard line. On his first day in office, he reversed steps to relax sanctions that former President Joe Biden had taken just a few weeks earlier. Since then, the State Department has stepped up diplomatic pressure to force countries hosting Cuban doctors to close those programs. It stopped issuing visas for Cubans to visit family in the United States or participate in cultural and educational exchanges, and the Treasury Department began denying U.S. groups licenses to visit Cuba on those programs.

The administration has broken off all substantive diplomatic dialogue with the Cuban government, canceling even semiannual migration talks. At the same time, it canceled Biden’s 2022 humanitarian parole program, which brought more than 100,000 Cubans to the United States legally, putting all of them (and another 400,000 to 500,000 who arrived  undocumented) at risk of detention and deportation. Instead of talking with the Cuban government, the chargé of the U.S. Embassy in Havana has made an ostentatious public display of engaging with and supporting Cuban dissidents—a strategy reminiscent of similar actions by George W. Bush’s administration in an effort to provoke the Cubans into breaking off diplomatic relations.

But NSPM-5 came as something of a surprise because it does not fully reinstate the “maximum pressure” policy of regime change that characterized the last two years of the first Trump administration. Instead, it harks back to the first two years of his first term by reinstating the June 2017 NSPM on Cuba with only a few modest changes.

To be sure, that policy was not one of engagement. The new NSPM reaffirms the traditional U.S. approach of hostility and coercion based on economic sanctions that has characterized U.S. policy since 1962. But it is less aggressive than expected from an administration with Marco Rubio serving as both as secretary of state and national security advisor—and less aggressive than some insiders had predicted.

Some anonymous sources have told the press that by prohibiting “indirect” as well as direct transactions with Cuban firms linked to the country’s armed forces, the new NSPM opens the door to “secondary sanctions” on foreign companies. But NSPM only calls for modifications of existing sanctions regulations, which only apply to “persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction”—people and entities with a U.S. presence—and so does not authorize secondary sanctions, as that term is commonly understood, against foreign companies without a U.S. presence. The administration could impose such sanctions, but it would probably require additional executive orders and different statutory authority than the embargo, which only authorizes sanctions against Cuba, not third parties.

Even under the NSPM, it’s unclear how any firms, foreign and domestic, could be held liable for doing business “indirectly”—presumably meaning through some third entity—with Cuban firms connected to the armed forces unless all those indirect conduits are added to the State Department’s restricted entities list. Otherwise, how would a company doing business in Cuba know if their Cuban counterparty was a prohibited conduit?

This ambiguity may be intentional—to create so much uncertainty about the rules that companies are afraid to do any business with Cuba for fear of committing an inadvertent infraction that could cost millions in fines. Nothing is more Kafkaesque than not knowing whether your actions violate the law until you’re charged. More will be revealed when the State Department issues its updated restricted entities list by the end of July 2025, as the NSPM requires.

In any case, NSPM-5 signals that Cuba is not a priority for the administration at the moment. While one camp within the administration continues to argue that the catastrophic crisis facing the Cuban economy makes the country ripe for regime change, the other camp seems to have the upper hand. NSPM-5 represents continuity, with no new initiatives to dramatically escalate sanctions.

These divergent opinions echo the conflict over whether to extend Chevron’s license to continue business in Venezuela. Richard Grenell, Trump’s presidential envoy for special missions, argued in favor of the extension in order to keep Venezuelan oil out of the hands of China. Rubio argued to keep the pressure on. Grenell appeared to have won the argument until three Cuban American members of the House threatened to sink Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” after which Trump revoked Chevron’s license but allowed it to keep its assets in the country.

The Venezuelan dispute signaled Trump’s reluctance to return to his first administration’s aggressive but unsuccessful regime change policies toward Venezuela and Cuba designed by former National Security Advisor John Bolton and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—both now anathema to the president.

Harking back to its namesake in the 1930s, Trump’s “America First” movement has a neo-isolationist tinge that reflects the president’s instinctive suspicion of foreign entanglements. On various occasions, Trump has expressed skepticism about regime change policies and the risk that they pose of creating failed states and pulling the United States into “endless wars.”

In one of his first foreign-policy speeches, in 2017, Trump promised that the United States would no longer go abroad to “construct democracies in faraway lands or create democracies in our own image. … We are not nation-building again.”

“We more and more are not wanting to be the policemen of the world,” he declared in 2018.

And “[r]egime change takes chaos,” he said last month, foreswearing regime change in Iran. “We don’t want to see so much chaos.”

If the aggressive escalation of sanctions against Cuba proposed by some Trump advisors and Cuban Americans in Congress were to succeed at collapsing the Cuban regime, then chaos is what they’d get, with dire consequences for a wide range of U.S. interests. Migration pressures would skyrocket, risking a repeat of the 1980 and 1994 migration crises. A collapse of public order on the island would end counternarcotics cooperation, giving drug traffickers the opportunity to establish a beachhead in Cuba, with easy access to the United States just 90 miles away.

The resulting social disorder would draw in Cuban Americans desperate to protect their relatives, spurring calls in Congress for direct U.S. intervention—just as were heard in 2021 in response to just a single day of nationwide demonstrations.

Trump would face pressures akin to those faced by President William McKinley in 1898, when the violence of Cuba’s war of independence with Spain enflamed U.S. opinion, leading to an intervention that has entangled Washington in Cuban internal affairs ever since—exactly the scenario that the president has promised not to repeat. All these risks can be limited by avoiding an escalation of sanctions or pursuing limited engagement.

How Trump’s Cuba policy unfolds over the next three and a half years will depend on whether Grenell’s preference for leaving Cuba on the back burner or Rubio’s preference for escalation carries the day. Rubio has the advantage of controlling the foreign policymaking apparatus, but Grenell has the president’s ear, and his views are more in line with Trump’s gut instinct. When Trump has to chose between his gut and the advice of the foreign-policy bureaucracy, his gut usually wins.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams

The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday once again overwhelmingly urged the U.S. government to end its decadeslong blockade on Cuba, with just the United States and Israel voting against the measure and Moldova abstaining.

The UNGA’s other 187 members present voted to adopt the nonbinding resolution on “the necessity of ending the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States” against the Caribbean island.

This is the 32nd straight year that the U.N. body has approved a resolution against the embargo that began in 1962.

“The U.S. and Israel stand isolated as the only two votes against,” Democratic Socialists of America’s International Committee said after the Wednesday vote. “The world has spoken—it’s time for the U.S. to listen and lift the blockade.”

Though a few other nations have opposed the resolution over the years, Michael Galant of Progressive International and the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that this vote was “two genocidaires v. the world.”

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil's president calls U.S. economic embargo on Cuba 'illegal,' condemns terrorist list label

On his first trip to Cuba during his third term in office, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called the embargo imposed by the United States on the island "illegal" and denounced the island's inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump included the island nation on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, and though the Biden administration has reversed other Trump-era measures, it has so far not removed Cuba from the list.

"Cuba has been an advocate of fairer global governance. And to this day it is the victim of an illegal economic embargo," Lula said in a speech opening the G77 Summit of developing nations in the capital, Havana. "Brazil is against any unilateral coercive measure. We reject Cuba's inclusion on the list of states sponsoring terrorism."

The comments were made just hours before Lula left for New York, where he will attend the United Nations General Assembly and have bilateral talks with Biden.

Continue reading.

[40ouncesandamule]

From 2002:

The Dictatorship of Capital

The mid-term elections have made it official: the US is a one-party state—a dictatorship of capital. Unlike the Communist party that represents the workers, the Republican Party represents the owners. The class struggle is globalized: the two camps are now confronting each other on a global level: the United States owners and the world workers.

Capitalist states and their apologists have, of course, always distinguished themselves from communist states by emphasizing the single party-ness of the communist states. For the proponents of the free market, the best evidence that communist countries are "totalitarian" and "anti-democratic" has always been that they are governed by single party states. Thus, while all Cubans (under conditions of a devastating decades long U.S. embargo designed to annihilate their economy) have access to healthcare, education, and can boast a 95% literacy rate, Cuba has been regarded as a "brutal dictatorship" for its single-party system by the richest nation in the world—in which citizens are denied healthcare, 15 million children are struggling with hunger, and in which high school students will graduate with less than an 8th grade reading level.

Up until now, the illusion of a "multi-party" system was kept alive by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, which previously engaged in vigorous "social policy" disputes with Republicans, has always quietly supported the ruling class along side of them, through capitalist reforms. The extensive social policy of F.D.R.'s "New Deal" was advanced by the Democratic Party to save U.S. capital (which was on the verge of total collapse) from the growing hostility and outrage of American workers against class inequalities, and to ensure, for a fledgling U.S. capital, a much needed compliant and increasingly productive domestic labor force from which capital could extract surplus-labor for profit. The "welfare reforms" supported by the Clinton Administration—which dismantled the last vestiges of welfare—were merely an expression of the fact that U.S. capital had amassed so much wealth from the exploitation of U.S. workers that it suffered a crisis of profitability from overproduction, and was compelled to drive the standard of living (the necessary labor) of workers down to make more room in the working day for surplus-labor. "Social policy" in capitalism has always been a way to transfer the congealed labor of workers into the hands of the ruling class.

But now, with the all but "official" collapse of the Democratic Party, there has been a collapse of the illusion that the U.S. state is anything but a dictatorship of owners. The "explanations" of the collapse of the "multi-party" state offered by politicians and the corporate media in the wake of the elections have been trivializing non-explanations: they have either focused on the "back-boned" political savvy of the Republican Party or a "lack of organization" in the Democratic Party and its inability to offer a "strong program" to citizens. All of this masks the fact that election strategies have never been the basis of change. The silence of the Democratic Party on the issues of corporate scandals, the huge tax cuts for the rich, environmental destruction, health care, the rollback of democratic rights in the national security state and war is not an effect of a poor election strategy, but a silence driven by shared economic interests. When the basic question of the profitability of capital is at stake there is no decisive difference between the two parties.

Now that its "single-party-ness" is officially established, the U.S. state can dispense with all pretense to "democracy" and the social well-being of citizens and get down to the business of concentrating the wealth of the world into the hands of a few. The "policy disputes" that once marked the difference between the two parties have either emptied and decayed into hollow habitual objections or altogether disappeared. The single-party state is united in its abdication of all political power to a capitalist oligarchy, spearheaded by an oil tycoon who is now being hailed in the right-wing National Review as "The Conqueror". The state is now a garrison state to protect the imperialist interests of U.S. capital at the expense of the world's workers. Even members of the capitalist oligarchy can no longer deny that any pretense to democracy and the social well being of citizens has been dropped by the single-party state of owners. In a recent interview (to be published in Esquire), a former top aid to the Bush Administration, John J. DiIulio Jr. (appointed by Bush to head the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives) states that: "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis" (The Drudge Report 2002, December 1, 2002). DiIulio has since "apologized" for his criticism, under the pressure of White House Spokesperson Ari Fleisher, who knows that democratic debate has no place in a single-party dictatorship of capital. 

What is revealed by the collapse of the multi-party system is that the modern "democratic" state of "multiple parties", "civil rights", and national "self-determination"—at one time seemingly "immortalized" in the "United Nations"—has become outdated and has outlived its historical usefulness to imperialist capital. The "freedoms" of the modern "democratic" state, which were once necessary for the protection of the developing bourgeoisie (and helping it secure a domestic labor force to exploit), are becoming too restrictive for U.S. monopoly capital and, therefore, have to go. This is not a simple matter of a shift in political "policy". Rather, it is a historical matter of economic necessity for the ruling class. U.S. capital is in a deep crisis of profitability (overtly marked by the collapse of the telecom industry and the recent corporate scandals). Along with its (failed) strategy to buffer a decline in the rate of profit by appropriating millions of dollars from the retirement funds of U.S. workers, U.S. capital is in a ruthless pursuit of new profitable investments and new conditions of production by obtaining the rights to appropriate the oil and labor of Central Asia and the Middle East—which bourgeois democracy gets in the way of.

To state this more clearly: The readiness of the ruling class to dispense with the now outdated ("democratic") relations because they threaten profitability is a dramatic index of the deepening contradiction between the relentless global expansion and development of the productive forces that makes possible the meeting of all people's needs, and the efforts to ensure that production remains organized around private accumulation (profit). The old strategies of bourgeois democracy, which U.S. capital used to secure profit in the past, now stand in the way of the drive to concentrate global production in its own hands and gain access to new reserves of labor from which to extract a profit so as to ensure its dominance and competitiveness in the world economy. Today the ruling class has no use for bourgeois democracy, national sovereignty, civil rights—all of which increasingly get in the way of its capacity to accumulate profit. It is the crisis of profitability in capitalism, not "weapons inspection", that is behind the U.S. drive to dispense with the United Nations (that last bastion of bourgeois democracy) and its "countdown" to war with Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein (who represents a "national" capitalist competitor standing in the way of U.S. capital's monopoly over the global oil industry). U.S. capital is in crisis and requires a single-party "security" state of capitalist oligarchs which has dispensed with all questions of the "democratic self-determination" of nations and is single-minded in its focus on a ruthless redivision of the world to amass greater wealth from the world's workers and concentrate production and profit to meet its own economic needs.

It is in this context that the emphasis now paid to the need for "national security" to protect "our (democratic) way of life" should also be understood: as part of the ideological means by which the single-party capitalist oligarchy popularizes the narrow class interests of U.S. monopoly capital as in the general interests of "all Americans". "Our way of life" has been a way to bribe American workers into quiet consent: to produce a labor aristocracy which does not mind the acquisition of cheap Iraqi oil through the slaughter and exploitation of "other" workers in order to compensate for the "decent" living wages (by far the lowest in the advanced capitalist nations) that are denied to them by their "own" ruling class.

But behind the cultural slogans, and behind the economic mechanisms producing the consent of workers to the relations of exploitation, the economic relations of "American" capital tell a different story: not one of "democratic self-determination" of "our way of life" but of the parasitism of U.S. capital's dependence on the exploited labor of the world proletariat. This parasitism of U.S. imperialism—its theft of the surplus-labor of the international proletariat—and the concentration of production into fewer hands that is part and parcel of imperialist conquest not only is not in the historic class interests of the world working class in the struggle for a society free from exploitation of their collective labor, but is not even in the "immediate" interests of any workers. The rule of monopoly capital has led not to an increase but a decline in the standard of living of the majority of workers, including those in the U.S. where the productivity of labor is the highest in the world and where the wage gap has increased so dramatically that CEOs who made 39 times the average worker's wage 30 years ago now make 1000 times the average worker's wage.

"Our way of life", to put this another way, is the way of life of the ruling class—production for profit—which has always been a code for maintaining "them" in "their way of life"—as a cheap pool of readily exploitable surplus labor and a secure market for the products of the West. Far from bringing the promise of prosperity to all, the dictatorship of capital and its aggressive maintenance of private property relations to profit from the surplus-labor of workers ultimately "rewards" the increased productivity of the international proletariat with stagnation and decay of their conditions of life, with economic immiseration for the overwhelming majority and the constant threat to their basic life security. While the concentration of production in capitalism leads to increased productivity of the international proletariat—to the socialization of the productive forces around the world—the maintenance of relations of production based on private property (in which the few own and control the means of production and command over the surplus-labor of millions), requires increasingly drastic measures of economic, political, and military assault on workers.

If there is any question that the U.S. state is a dictatorship of capital against all workers, one only has to look at the readiness of Bush to threaten West Coast dock workers with a military assault if they strike for a safe workplace and other improvements to their living and working conditions. Like the dismantling of civil rights, of the welfare state, of bourgeois democracy…these are the historically necessary attempts, under capitalism, by a now unveiled dictatorship of capital to maintain increasingly outdated private property relations and try to "resolve" the crisis of profitability at the expense of workers. The only way to free all workers from exploitation (the theft of their surplus-labor) and the increasingly aggressive attack on their conditions of life in order to maintain relations of exploitation, is to free workers from this historical necessity for profit under capitalism. What is needed to struggle against the brutal dictatorship of capital—production for profit, which is always production for the few at the expense of the majority—is a dictatorship of the proletariat: production for need and freedom from necessity for all.

[cyberbenb]

US court blocks most of Trump's tariffs, rules he exceeded authority

A U.S. federal court overturned on May 28 President Donald Trump’s tariffs on dozens of countries, including those affecting trade with Ukraine, according to the U.S. Court of International Trade’s ruling.

Trump announced a new sweeping tariff policy on April 2 as part of what he called “Liberation Day,” framing the tariff regime as a bid to revitalize U.S. manufacturing and fight back against foreign exploitation.

Ukraine was hit with a 10% blanket tariff on its exports, lower than the 20% imposed on the European Union. Increased rates targeted countries where the U.S. has the largest trade deficits, notably China.

Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and Cuba were not included.

The court ruled that the federal law allowing the president to impose tariffs, embargoes, and sanctions during national emergencies “does not authorize the president to impose unbounded tariffs.”

The ruling cited the U.S. Constitution, saying that it grants Congress sole authority over international trade, which is not superseded by the president’s emergency economic powers.

The court struck down the 10% tariffs applied to all U.S. trading partners to address the trade deficit, along with Trump’s proposed “reciprocal” tariffs of 20–50% on over 60 countries. This move means that the court would also block tariffs on trade with Ukraine.

Additionally, the court overturned Trump’s executive orders imposing 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods and a 20% tariff on Chinese goods.

A 10% blanket tariff on its exports was still a setback for a country at war. Kyiv’s metallurgy sector, a major source of Ukrainian exports to the U.S., was already impacted by a 25% tariff imposed in March.

In 2023, Ukrainian exports to the U.S. totaled just $874 million, while imports from the U.S. reached $3.4 billion. The overall trade volume has declined in recent years, but the tariffs could deepen the imbalance, especially if they trigger broader protectionist measures globally.

Yuliia Svyrydenko, Ukraine’s Economy Minister, called the U.S. tariffs announced in early April “difficult, but not critical,” saying Kyiv remained focused on long-term economic resilience and international cooperation.

Ukraine war latest: Moscow proposes next round of Russia-Ukraine talks on June 2 in Istanbul

* Moscow proposes next round of Russia-Ukraine talks on June 2 in Istanbul * Ukrainian drones hit Russian cruise missile factory, SBU source says, in one of largest reported strikes of full-scale war * 11 more Ukrainian Children rescued from Russian-occupied territories, Yermak’s advisor says * ‘We’ll know in two weeks’ if Putin serious

The Kyiv IndependentThe Kyiv Independent news desk

[thellawtoknow]

Embargo as a Legal Sanction: Analyzing Its Purpose, Effectiveness, and Consequences

Embargo as a Legal Sanction: Analyzing Its Purpose, Effectiveness, and Consequences Legal Enforcement and Justification of EmbargoesDomestic Enforcement of Embargoes International Enforcement of Embargoes Regional Organizations and Embargoes Legal Justifications for Embargoes Effectiveness of Embargoes as a SanctionDeterminants of Embargo Effectiveness Examples of Successful Embargoes Examples of Failed or Counterproductive Embargoes Unintended Consequences of Embargoes Embargo as a Legal Sanction: Analyzing Its Purpose, Effectiveness, and Consequences Embargoes are legal sanctions imposed by governments or international organizations to restrict trade and economic relations with specific nations, entities, or individuals. Their primary objective is to influence the behavior of the targeted party by exerting economic pressure, often in response to human rights violations, military aggression, or breaches of international law. Embargoes can be comprehensive, affecting all trade, or partial, targeting specific industries such as arms, technology, or oil. This essay examines the legal basis of embargoes, their effectiveness in achieving political and humanitarian goals, and their unintended consequences.

Legal Enforcement and Justification of Embargoes Domestic Enforcement of Embargoes At the national level, embargoes are typically imposed through legislative measures that grant governments the authority to restrict trade, freeze assets, and impose penalties on individuals or entities engaging in prohibited transactions. In the United States, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) serves as a primary legal instrument for implementing embargoes. Under IEEPA, the President has the authority to regulate or prohibit economic transactions in response to a national emergency related to foreign threats. This law has been used to impose sanctions on countries such as Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea. Other national laws also play a role in embargo enforcement. For example: - The Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), originally enacted during World War I, allows the U.S. government to regulate transactions with hostile nations during wartime. This law was used to impose the long-standing embargo on Cuba. - The Export Administration Act grants the U.S. government authority to restrict exports that may threaten national security or foreign policy interests. - The Magnitsky Act, adopted in the U.S. and later extended to other jurisdictions, allows sanctions against foreign individuals involved in human rights violations and corruption. Other countries have similar mechanisms. In the United Kingdom, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 empowers the government to impose trade restrictions and asset freezes. In Canada, the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA) provides the legal framework for enacting economic sanctions. Domestic enforcement mechanisms vary by country but typically include: - Trade restrictions, such as prohibiting the export or import of goods and services. - Asset freezes, which prevent targeted individuals or entities from accessing financial resources. - Travel bans, restricting individuals associated with the sanctioned regime from entering the sanctioning country. - Financial penalties, imposed on companies or individuals that violate embargo regulations. Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) oversee compliance with these sanctions, ensuring that businesses and individuals adhere to embargo restrictions. International Enforcement of Embargoes Beyond national laws, embargoes are also imposed at the international level, primarily through the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The UNSC has the authority to take measures to maintain international peace and security, including imposing embargoes as a means of exerting non-military pressure on countries engaged in activities that threaten global stability. One notable example is the UN arms embargo on North Korea, imposed in response to its nuclear weapons program. The UNSC has repeatedly strengthened these sanctions, banning North Korea from importing or exporting arms, restricting financial transactions linked to its weapons programs, and limiting its access to foreign currency. Despite these measures, North Korea has sought ways to circumvent sanctions, highlighting the challenges of enforcement. Another example is the UN embargo on Libya during the country’s civil conflict. In 2011, the UNSC imposed an arms embargo to prevent weapons from reaching warring factions. Additionally, asset freezes and travel bans were placed on individuals associated with the Gaddafi regime. While UNSC-imposed embargoes are legally binding on all UN member states, enforcement depends on national governments. Countries must enact domestic laws and mechanisms to comply with UN sanctions, which can lead to inconsistent implementation. Some nations actively enforce embargoes, while others find loopholes or refuse to comply due to political or economic interests. Regional Organizations and Embargoes Regional organizations also play a crucial role in imposing embargoes as part of their foreign policy strategies. For example: - European Union (EU): The EU frequently imposes embargoes as part of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). These embargoes can include trade restrictions, asset freezes, and travel bans. Notable examples include the EU’s embargo on Russia following the annexation of Crimea and sanctions on Myanmar due to human rights violations. - African Union (AU): The AU has used embargoes to address regional conflicts. In 2016, it imposed an arms embargo on South Sudan due to ongoing violence and human rights abuses. - Organization of American States (OAS): The OAS has supported embargoes against undemocratic regimes, such as in Venezuela. These regional embargoes are often coordinated with UN sanctions but may also be imposed independently based on regional security concerns. Legal Justifications for Embargoes Embargoes are typically justified based on several legal and moral grounds, including: - Deterrence of Aggression: One of the primary reasons for imposing embargoes is to prevent a country from engaging in military aggression. By restricting access to weapons, technology, and financial resources, embargoes aim to weaken a nation's ability to wage war. For instance, the UN arms embargo on Iran sought to limit its military capabilities amid concerns over regional security. - Protection of Human Rights: Embargoes are often imposed in response to severe human rights violations. Countries accused of crimes against humanity, such as Myanmar’s military junta or Sudan during the Darfur conflict, have faced embargoes designed to pressure governments into respecting human rights. - Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: A key justification for embargoes is to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The sanctions on North Korea and Iran fall into this category, aiming to curb their nuclear programs by restricting access to essential materials and financial networks. - Countering Terrorism and Organized Crime: Embargoes are sometimes used to disrupt the financing of terrorism and illicit activities. The UN and EU have imposed sanctions on entities linked to terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, freezing their assets and restricting financial transactions. - Punishment for Violating International Law: When a state violates international law—such as by illegally annexing territory—embargoes can serve as a punitive measure. The sanctions on Russia following its annexation of Crimea were imposed to uphold international law and deter further territorial aggression. The legal enforcement of embargoes is a complex process that involves national, international, and regional legal frameworks. While embargoes are often justified on grounds of deterrence, human rights protection, and non-proliferation, their effectiveness depends on global compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Despite their strategic objectives, embargoes often face challenges, including loopholes, economic repercussions for third parties, and humanitarian concerns. A well-designed embargo requires multilateral cooperation, clear legal backing, and mechanisms to minimize unintended consequences while maximizing diplomatic pressure. Effectiveness of Embargoes as a Sanction The effectiveness of embargoes as a legal sanction is highly dependent on multiple factors, including the level of international cooperation, the economic resilience of the targeted nation, and the adaptability of its leadership. While embargoes have, in some cases, contributed to political change and policy shifts, they have also demonstrated significant limitations, often failing to achieve their intended objectives. This section explores the key determinants of embargo effectiveness, examples of successful and failed embargoes, and the broader economic and political consequences of such measures. Determinants of Embargo Effectiveness - Degree of International Cooperation The success of an embargo largely depends on whether multiple countries enforce it collectively. If a targeted nation can still trade with alternative partners, the economic impact of the embargo is significantly weakened. For instance, while the United Nations-backed embargo on Iraq in the 1990s was widely enforced, certain countries engaged in illicit trade, reducing its effectiveness. In contrast, embargoes on North Korea have been undermined by trade partnerships with China and Russia. - Economic and Political Resilience of the Targeted Country Some countries are better equipped to withstand embargoes due to their natural resources, self-sufficiency, or government control over economic structures. Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea have endured long-term embargoes by developing alternative economic mechanisms, including illicit trade, barter agreements, and cryptocurrency-based transactions. On the other hand, South Africa’s apartheid regime struggled under economic sanctions due to its reliance on global trade and investment, contributing to political reforms in the early 1990s. - Existence of Internal Opposition Movements Embargoes are more effective when there is an active opposition within the sanctioned country that can use economic hardship as leverage against the ruling government. In South Africa, internal resistance movements such as the African National Congress (ANC) played a crucial role in capitalizing on international pressure to push for political change. Conversely, in countries like Cuba and North Korea, the ruling elites have used embargoes as propaganda tools, blaming foreign interference for domestic hardships and consolidating power rather than conceding to external pressure. - Targeted vs. Comprehensive Embargoes The nature of the embargo also affects its effectiveness. Targeted sanctions, such as freezing assets of political elites or banning arms sales, can be more effective in influencing government decisions without causing widespread suffering. Comprehensive embargoes, which restrict trade entirely, often have unintended consequences, harming civilians more than political leaders. The Cuban embargo, for example, has primarily hurt ordinary citizens while having little impact on regime change. Examples of Successful Embargoes - South Africa (1980s-1990s) – Ending Apartheid One of the most widely cited examples of a successful embargo is the international sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa. In response to systemic racial segregation and human rights abuses, countries such as the United States and the European Union imposed trade restrictions, cutting off investments, banning arms sales, and limiting access to international markets. These measures, combined with internal protests and political pressure, forced the South African government to dismantle apartheid, leading to democratic reforms and the election of Nelson Mandela in 1994. - Iran (2010-2015) – Nuclear Program Negotiations Another example of a partially successful embargo is the sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program. Between 2010 and 2015, the United Nations, European Union, and United States imposed strict financial and oil sanctions on Iran, leading to a significant economic downturn. Faced with mounting economic pressure, Iran agreed to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, which placed limits on its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. While the deal was later abandoned by the U.S. in 2018, the initial embargo demonstrated how economic pressure can lead to diplomatic agreements. - Libya (1992-2003) – Ending State-Sponsored Terrorism The United Nations imposed an embargo on Libya following its involvement in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The sanctions, which restricted trade, travel, and financial transactions, contributed to Libya's eventual decision to hand over suspects, renounce its weapons of mass destruction program, and reintegrate into the international community. The embargo was lifted in 2003 following Libya’s compliance with international demands. Examples of Failed or Counterproductive Embargoes - Cuba (1960-Present) – Decades of Economic Hardship Without Regime Change One of the longest-running embargoes in history, the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, has failed to achieve its primary goal of forcing political change. Despite more than six decades of economic restrictions, Cuba remains under one-party Communist rule. Rather than toppling the government, the embargo has provided the Cuban regime with a justification for economic struggles, strengthening anti-U.S. sentiment and encouraging alliances with other adversarial nations such as Russia, China, and Venezuela. - North Korea – A Defiant Regime Adapting to Sanctions North Korea has been under international sanctions for decades due to its nuclear weapons program. Despite extensive restrictions on trade, finance, and technology, the Kim Jong-un regime has continued its military advancements, often evading sanctions through illegal trade networks, cyber activities, and cooperation with sympathetic states. The embargo has not led to denuclearization, nor has it weakened the ruling regime’s grip on power. - Russia (2014-Present) – Limited Impact on Policy Decisions Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Western nations imposed economic sanctions on Russia, targeting its financial sector, energy industry, and defense sector. While these sanctions have undoubtedly harmed Russia’s economy, they have not deterred further military aggression, as demonstrated by the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Instead, Russia has shifted its economic focus towards China, India, and other non-Western partners, reducing the overall impact of the embargo. Unintended Consequences of Embargoes - Humanitarian Impact Comprehensive embargoes often hurt the general population more than the political elites. For example, the oil embargo on Iraq in the 1990s led to severe malnutrition and medical shortages, disproportionately affecting children and vulnerable groups. Similarly, embargoes on Venezuela and Cuba have contributed to economic crises, exacerbating poverty and limiting access to essential goods. - Strengthening of Authoritarian Regimes In many cases, embargoes have consolidated power in the hands of authoritarian rulers. When faced with economic hardship, governments often tighten domestic control, suppress opposition, and use propaganda to shift blame onto external forces. This has been observed in North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela, where embargoes have strengthened ruling elites rather than weakened them. - Encouraging Alternative Alliances Sanctioned nations often seek alternative economic partnerships, reducing the effectiveness of embargoes. Russia, for example, has deepened economic ties with China and India to counteract Western sanctions. Similarly, Iran has engaged in barter trade and illicit oil sales to sustain its economy. The effectiveness of embargoes as a legal sanction depends on various factors, including international cooperation, economic resilience, and political context. While some embargoes—such as those on South Africa, Iran, and Libya—have achieved their objectives, others, like those on Cuba, North Korea, and Russia, have failed to bring about significant policy changes. In many cases, embargoes produce unintended consequences, harming civilians, strengthening authoritarian regimes, and fostering alternative economic alliances. As a result, policymakers must carefully assess the strategic design of embargoes, ensuring they are targeted, multilateral, and accompanied by diplomatic efforts to achieve meaningful change. Unintended Consequences of Embargoes Embargoes often produce unintended and sometimes counterproductive consequences. The most common issues include: - Humanitarian Impact – Embargoes can lead to shortages of essential goods such as food, medicine, and energy, disproportionately affecting civilians rather than political leaders. The oil embargo on Iraq in the 1990s resulted in widespread malnutrition and deteriorating healthcare conditions. - Economic Consequences for Third Parties – Countries that rely on trade with the sanctioned nation may suffer economic losses. For example, European businesses faced significant losses due to sanctions on Russia following its annexation of Crimea. - Strengthening Authoritarian Regimes – In some cases, embargoes provide authoritarian governments with a scapegoat for economic problems, strengthening their grip on power. Leaders often use the sanctions to rally nationalist sentiment and blame external forces for domestic hardships. - Encouraging Alternative Alliances – Sanctioned nations often seek new economic partnerships, undermining the embargo’s impact. For example, Russia has strengthened economic ties with China and India in response to Western sanctions. Conclusion Embargoes remain a powerful tool of international diplomacy, capable of exerting economic pressure to achieve political and security objectives. Read the full article

[newstfionline]

Friday, November 1, 2024

Canada prepares for U.S. election that ‘keeps people up at night’ (Washington Post) Canada survived Donald Trump’s first term—but it wasn’t easy. He tore up the North American Free Trade Agreement, setting off a bruising renegotiation. He imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, prompting retaliation. He hurled insults at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, calling him “very dishonest and weak.” He injected friction into a relationship known for its closeness. Canadian opinion of the United States, by far Canada’s largest trading partner, plunged. A Harris victory in next week’s razor-tight presidential election would offer a U.S. leader with whom Canada has not struggled to find common ground. She lived in Canada for five years as a teen and graduated from high school in Montreal. But the possible return of the intemperate former president to the White House, coupled with rising protectionism on both sides of the U.S. political aisle—which will remain a key issue whichever side wins—has Ottawa dispatching top officials across the United States in a bid to stave off policies that could jeopardize Canadian interests. The U.S. election “keeps a lot of people up at night,” said Canadian Sen. Peter M. Boehm.

Could ‘adult dorms’ save city downtowns? (The Week) American cities have two big problems these days: Too much empty office space and not enough affordable housing. There may be a solution. Those empty offices could be converted to “micro-apartments”—“ultracompact rentals about the size of a cruise ship cabin,” said The Minnesota Star Tribune. A study from urban planners said a typical micro-apartment in Minneapolis would rent for about $750 a month, “about half the cost of a typical rental” in the city’s downtown. But they would definitely be micro, about 150 square feet. Each apartment would have room for a bed, desk and half-sized refrigerator. Living room, kitchen and laundry areas would be communal shared spaces. These would be “tiny, tiny, apartments,” Andrea Riquier said at USA Today. They could serve young adults, older people and even the homeless. Most importantly, it would let developers add housing to a “market at the most affordable price point.”

UN General Assembly condemns the US economic embargo of Cuba for a 32nd year (AP) The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to condemn the American economic embargo of Cuba for a 32nd year. The vote in the 193-member world body was 187-2, with only the United States and Israel against the resolution, and one abstention. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez blamed the U.S. government’s “maximum pressure policy” aimed at depriving Cuba of the imported fuel it relies on for a widespread blackout this month, including when Hurricane Oscar lashed the island.

8 of 11 members of Mexico’s Supreme Court to resign in protest of controversial judicial overhaul (AP) Eight justices of Mexico’s Supreme Court have said they will leave the court rather than stand for election as required by a controversial judicial overhaul passed last month. Supreme Court President Norma Piña and seven others submitted letters Tuesday and Wednesday stating they would leave their posts rather than compete in judicial elections scheduled for next June. Last month, Mexico’s Congress passed—and a majority of states ratified—then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s initiative to make all of the country’s judges subject to election. López Obrador and his allies, including his successor Claudia Sheinbaum, have said the radical change will help rid the judicial system of corruption. However, critics say the courts will become less independent and more subject to political forces.

Argentina’s public universities are paralyzed by protests (AP) After 11 months in office, Argentina’s President Javier Milei has fulfilled his flagship pledge to eliminate the country’s monumental deficits by shrinking the public payroll, slashing subsidies and suppressing already low wages of state workers. The austerity has spawned misery. But with the country’s left-wing opposition in disarray after delivering the economic disaster that Milei inherited, Argentina hasn’t seen the kind of widespread social unrest that has characterized past economic crises. That could change. The country’s teachers are fed up. Milei’s recent veto of a bill boosting spending on university budgets struck a collective nerve in a nation that long has considered free education a right, drawing the broadest demonstrations since the libertarian leader took office. Last week’s open-air classes held in Plaza de Mayo, the main square home to government headquarters, marked the latest in a new wave of protests supporting public universities that has gripped Argentina over the past month. Students are taking over college campuses in the coming days ahead of another mass protest.

European countries, trailing U.S. economy, hike taxes and trim spending (Washington Post) Europe is facing tight times, with the governments of the largest economies—Britain, France and Germany—confronting sluggish growth and soaring debt as they struggle to produce their budgets for next year. On a day of more good news about the sturdy growth of the U.S. economy, the outlook across the Atlantic was gloomier. Britain’s Labour Party government unveiled its long-awaited fiscal plan Wednesday, proposing to raise $52 billion in new taxes—the biggest increase in a generation. That comes after the new French government this month revealed austerity plans. The French economy got a bit of an Olympic boost, but the country is grappling with what the government has called a “colossal” debt burden and a spiraling deficit, one of Europe’s worst. And Germany learned Wednesday that it had narrowly avoided a recession, but the country that has been the economic engine of Europe is experiencing anemic growth—and facing budget cuts as a result.

Russia fines Google more than the world's entire GDP (NBC News) Google may need to consider a payment plan for the latest allegations against it. On Wednesday, Russia fined the company $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000—a sum worth more than the world’s entire GDP put together. The 37-digit figure, otherwise known as 2 undecillion rubles, aims to punish Google for blocking content from 17 Russian TV stations and media outlets on YouTube, which Google owns. But even the Kremlin on Thursday admitted that the fine is more of a symbolic gesture than one expected to be paid off. Phew.

Russian propaganda is increasingly targeting Switzerland (NZZ/Switzerland) For decades, Russia has used disinformation as a way of skewing debates in the world’s free democracies, creating a constant background noise in the public discourse. Switzerland has been less affected than many other countries, but now the noise is getting louder in this country too. An analysis of the Russian propaganda platform Russia Today shows the scale of the change. In late January 2024, RT’s German-language website introduced a separate section focusing specifically on Switzerland. Since then, RT has increased its reporting on Switzerland by a factor of 10. Roman Horbyk, a media researcher at the University of Zurich, says an information war is currently underway. The content of these RT articles follows classic Russian disinformation strategies. They portray a dismal picture of the country, in which it is apparently quite normal for foreigners to stab children, refugees to defraud the state, and the government to act arbitrarily and corruptly. However, 0ne of the most frequent topics is the war in Ukraine. The reports often center on Ukrainian refugees, typically in a disparaging and distorted way. For example, in mid-October, one article carried the headline: “‘Gorge yourself, you freeloader!’ Dissatisfaction with Ukrainian refugees grows in Switzerland.” In addition, Swiss banks, the army and Switzerland’s neutrality policy often come off badly.

Russian drones hunt civilians in streets of southern Ukrainian city (Washington Post) Russian forces have escalated indiscriminate drone attacks against civilians in the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson, killing and maiming scores of people in what locals have described as a “human safari.” Unlike elsewhere on the 600-mile-long front, Russian forces in Kherson are just across the river from the city and are using small drones to harass the population, either by crashing into targets and exploding or by dropping grenades and small camouflaged mines. The situation is fairly unique compared with the rest of Ukraine, where Russian troops must use longer-range weapons to reach civilians. Humanitarian operations and city services such as fire trucks and buses seem to be under particular threat, officials said, though children on bicycles and older people gathering at markets have also been struck.

The 21st century space race (BBC) China’s Shenzou 19 spacecraft has successfully docked at the Tiangong space station, the latest feat in a record year of space exploration for the country. The three-person crew will use their six months in orbit to conduct experiments and carry out spacewalks as part of Beijing’s mission to put someone on the Moon by 2030. Yet some see China’s ambition as a threat. Nasa chief Bill Nelson has said the US and China are “in a race” to return to the Moon, where he fears Beijing wants to stake territorial claims. The Moon’s resources include rare earths, the value of which has been estimated to be anywhere between billions to quadrillions of dollars. In Dongfeng Space City, a town built to support the launch site, China’s space programme is celebrated. Every street light is adorned with the national flag, cartoon-like astronaut figurines and sculptures sit in the centre of children’s parks and plastic rockets are a centrepiece on most traffic roundabouts. This is a moment of national pride. But even though China has invited international press to witness their space progress—there are key restrictions. We were kept in a hotel three hours from the launch site and a simple trip to a friendly local restaurant was carefully guarded by a line of security personnel. We also noticed a large sign in town holding a stern warning: “You’ll be jailed if you leak secrets. You’ll be happy if you keep secrets. You’ll be shot if you sell secrets.” China is taking no chances with its new technology, as its rivalry with the US is no longer just here on Earth.

Typhoon Kong-rey makes landfall in Taiwan (Foreign Policy) Typhoon Kong-rey made landfall in Taiwan on Thursday, bringing fierce winds reaching the equivalent of a Category 4 hurricane. It is the most powerful storm to hit the island in nearly 30 years. Already, at least one person was killed and more than 200 injured. Local authorities urged residents to stay home, and Taipei has put 36,000 troops on standby to assist rescue efforts. More than 11,900 people across 14 cities and counties have been evacuated, according to Taiwan’s Interior Ministry. Taiwan Power has reported power outages in half a million households, authorities closed Taiwan’s financial markets and schools, and hundreds of flights were canceled due to high winds.

Israel Widens Hezbollah Strikes, Hitting Lebanese Cities Beyond Border Area (NYT) The Israeli military widened its campaign against the militant group Hezbollah on Wednesday, launching airstrikes around the eastern Lebanese city of Baalbek and forcing large numbers of people to flee. Israel’s strikes against Hezbollah, initially focused on smaller, border villages in the south, are expanding beyond the country’s periphery to port towns and urban centers where the group has supporters, including Baalbek, Tyre and Sidon. Famed for its towering Roman ruins, Baalbek, which had a population of about 80,000 people, had largely been spared Israeli bombardment until recent days. “People are panicking,” said Ibrahim Bayan, a mayoral deputy in Baalbek, adding that about a dozen strikes had landed in or around the city since Israel issued its evacuation warnings on Wednesday. The Israeli military said it struck fuel depots belonging to Hezbollah, stocked with fuel supplied by Iran.

Uganda struggles to feed more than 1.7 million refugees as international support dwindles (AP) For months, Agnes Bulaba, a Congolese refugee in Uganda, has had to get by without the food rations she once depended on. Her children scavenge among local communities for whatever they can find to eat. “As a woman who’s not married, life is hard,” Bulaba told The Associated Press. Some locals “keep throwing stones at us, but we just want to feed our kids and buy them some clothes,” said the mother of six, who often works as a prostitute to fend for her family. Uganda is home to more than 1.7 million refugees, the largest refugee-hosting country in Africa, according to the United Nations refugee agency. Despite being renowned for welcoming those fleeing neighboring violence, Ugandan officials and humanitarians say dwindling international support coupled with high numbers of refugees have put much pressure on host communities. Approximately 10,000 new arrivals enter Uganda each month, according to U.N. figures.

[godsun57]

Foreign Policy and Demilitarization

The bipartisan endless war machine enriches military contractors, lobbyists, and politicians, while it fuels devastation around the world and impoverishes our own people. The Pentagon budget consumes over half of the discretionary federal budget, and real US military spending is over $1 trillion dollars per year. The military-industrial complex, aided by its accomplices in both war parties, media, intelligence agencies, and beyond, has become a global empire that is profoundly destructive around the world and here at home.

Everyone has a human right to live in peace and dignity, free from violence and oppression. We must end the endless wars and create a new foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights to lead the way to a new era of peace and cooperation.

A Jill Stein administration will:

Establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights

End existing wars, military actions, proxy wars and secret wars

Cut military spending by 50-75% and ensure a just transition that replaces military jobs with Green New Deal jobs

Invest the peace dividend in a Global Green New Deal to prevent climate collapse, and build toward universal access to basic human needs for food, clean water and sanitation, education, and health care for every human being on Earth

Close the vast majority of the 700+ foreign US military bases

Stop U.S. support and arms sales to human rights abusers

Lead on global nuclear disarmament

End unilateral economic sanctions that primarily harm civilian populations

Remove war powers from the president and restore Congress’ sole power to declare war

Disband NATO and replace it with a modern, inclusive security framework that respects the security interests of all nations and people

Demand an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Palestine, an end to the blockade of Gaza, immediate humanitarian and medical relief, and release of hostages and political prisoners

Immediately end all military aid to Israel and adopt sanctions until Israel complies with international law to put an end to decades of violence, illegal occupation, displacement, dispossession, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing

End the longstanding US practice of vetoing UN Security Council resolutions to hold Israel accountable to international law

Move to end the UN Security Council to ensure the UN is a true democratic body

Remove U.S. troops from Iraq and Syria

Stop fueling the war between Russia and Ukraine and lead on negotiating a peaceful end

End the embargo of Cuba and normalize relations

End sanctions on Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela that amount to collective punishment of civilian populations

End US interventionist policies that drive people to become migrant refugees

End the failed drug wars and stop regime change attempts against foreign governments

Ban the use of killer drones, robots, and artificial intelligence

Close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Ensure family-supporting wages and benefits for military service members

Fully fund veterans’ programs and benefits, including healthcare, mental health, housing, and job training, for a transition to civilian life

Protect the rights of service members, including conscientious objectors

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[minnesotafollower]

Cuban Journalist Rejects U.S. Embargo as Cause of Cuba’s Turmoil 

A Cuban journalist, Rafaela Cruz, rejects its government’s claim that the U.S. embargo is the cause of the island’s poor exports.[1] She asserts that “the embargo’s limitations are directed primarily against the Cuban government and not against the rest of the nation, as demonstrated by the fact that after only three years of private entrepreneurs in  Cuba, they  are already, with relative ease,…

[comradegarf]

This is a declassified memorandum from Lester D. Mallory, to (at the time) U.S Assistant Secretary of State Roy R. Rubottom. Mallory states both that most Cubans support the Communist government, and that military action in Cuba would be a grave misstep (which was taken a year later anyway).

He therefore proposes that the U.S government should adopt a policy of economically starving Cuba, "to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.".

This is what they are doing to this day. The embargo on Cuba has been upheld in it's full extent since 1962. It makes it illegal for American corporations to trade with Cuba and for companies that trade with Cuba to trade with America. This has a severe effect on the Cuban economy, considering the U.S is the largest economy on Earth. This effect means Cuba struggles to import the food and medical supplies it needs to survive, which is killing Cuban citizens.

The Embargo is often defended by people citing the fact that it does not apply to medical or food trade, but this is really just for show. The law makes it incredibly vague what is actually allowed to be traded, and the process for organizations or companies to find out is very drawn out and complicated. This practically guarantees food and medicine imports will be all but completely non-existent as well.

The U.N Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article 2.c, states that: "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" is Genocide.

Joe Biden has yet to reverse any of the further restrictions placed on Cuba during the Trump administration, and has not taken Cuba off the "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list. The U.N votes on a resolution to condemn the embargo every year, demanding it be removed. In 2022, only the United States itself and the U.S puppet state Israel voted against.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

New York City: End the U.S. blockade of Cuba Rally and March

Saturday, October 29 - 12 noon

Gather at Times Square, Manhattan 

Join us in NYC and around the world. The UN General Assembly’s annual vote demanding an end to the “the Economic, Commercial and Financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba” – the blockade -- will take place over two days on November 2 and 3, 2022. This will be the 30th consecutive vote in which the world community will once again overwhelmingly condemn the cruel, unjust, and illegal US blockade against Cuba! For more information UNVote4Cuba.org

[mariacallous]

I am of two minds about this piece and I'm still trying to figure out where I end up with it, because I do agree with some of the points.

On an election night when Democrats did far better across the country than they had any reason to expect, Florida stood out as the exception. A red tide—not the one fouling Florida’s coasts, the one inundating its politics—swept away Democrats’ illusions that the Sunshine State might still be competitive. Gov. Ron DeSantis won in a landslide against Charlie Crist, a veteran Florida politician and former governor. Sen. Marco Rubio also won by a wide margin, defeating Rep. Val Demings, one of the strongest candidates the Democrats could have fielded. Democrats lost 20 of Florida’s 28 House races, failing to take back a major seat in south Florida (FL-27) that they had hoped to reclaim after losing it in 2020. In 2021, for the first time in Florida’s modern political history, there were more registered Republicans than Democrats. Democrats are still competitive in the urban strongholds of Tampa, Orlando, and Miami, but statewide they are not. There is no plausible scenario in which President Joe Biden or any other Democrat beats former President Donald Trump, let alone DeSantis, in Florida in 2024.

There is a silver lining to this dark electoral cloud for Democrats: A deep-red Florida gives them the freedom to reconstruct their Cuba policy based on U.S. foreign-policy interests rather than prognostications about Cuban American voters in Miami-Dade. But the habit of letting domestic politics drive Cuba policy will be hard to break. It has shaped how Democrats approach the issue for 40 years—ever since the 1980s, when Cuban Americans became a significant voting bloc.

Former President Bill Clinton admitted that “anybody with half a brain” knew the U.S. embargo against Cuba was a “policy of proven failure.” Nevertheless, during his 1992 campaign, he supported legislation tightening the embargo in order to outflank then-President George H.W. Bush on the right, and in 1996 he signed legislation writing the embargo into law. “Clinton really wanted to carry Florida,” explained former National Security Council official Richard Feinberg. “That was numero uno.” (Clinton lost there in 1992 but won in 1996.)

The 2000 election in Florida is burned into the collective memory of Democrats—especially Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, who was chief of staff to then-Vice President Al Gore and general counsel of Gore’s recount committee. In reprisal for Clinton returning 6-year-old Elián González to his father in Cuba, Cuban Americans cast a voto castigo (punishment vote) that cost Gore the presidency. Thus was born the conventional wisdom that to carry the swing state of Florida, Democratic presidential candidates had to be at least as tough on Cuba as their Republican opponents.

Former President Barak Obama challenged that wisdom in a limited way in 2008 and 2012 by appealing to Cuban American moderates with policies that favored family connections, relaxing restrictions on remittances, and travel. That strategy worked; Obama reached a high-water mark for Democrats, winning about half the Cuban American vote in 2012. But even Obama did not undertake his historic normalization policy until after he was safely reelected.

Trump’s success at mobilizing the Cuban American right by reversing Obama’s rapprochement with Havana persuaded some Democrats that the popularity of Obama’s policy was an anomaly. Biden returned to the default posture of trying to be as tough on Cuba as the Republicans, leaving most of Trump’s economic sanctions in place and adding new ones. Biden has even gone a step further, giving the diaspora a privileged role in crafting his Cuba policy, calling Cuban Americans “a vital partner” and “the best experts on the issue.”

The futility of this approach was on display in the election results, and a recent poll of Cuban Americans in south Florida explains why. Respondents overwhelmingly opposed Biden’s Cuba policy—72 percent to 28 percent—even though it was not substantially different from Trump’s, which they supported overwhelmingly. Cuban American antipathy toward Democrats goes far beyond Cuba policy, reaching across a wide range of issues, foreign and domestic. Cuban American Republicans greatly outnumber Democrats in party registration, and according to exit polls, 67 percent voted for Rubio and 69 percent for DeSantis.

If Florida is lost for the foreseeable future to Democrats running statewide, freeing the national Democratic Party to formulate Cuba policy based on national interests, what would that policy look like?

It would begin from the premise of promoting regime change or coercing the Cuban government into compliance with U.S. demands, but both approaches have an unbroken record of failure stretching back more than 50 years. As Democratic icon and former President Franklin D. Roosevelt advised: “Do something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn’t, do something else.” Time to do something else.

A Cuba policy based on national interests would recognize that inescapable geography gives the United States and Cuba significant interests in common, ranging from migration to environmental protection, public health, narcotics interdiction, and more—interests that can only be advanced through cooperation.

It would acknowledge that no other country in the world supports Washington’s policy of hostility, as the near-unanimous annual United Nations vote against the embargo has recorded for 30 years in a row. Many U.S. allies, especially the left-center governments now predominant in Latin America, actively oppose that policy, as they told Secretary of State Antony Blinken on his recent trip to the region. By stubbornly sticking to a policy of hostility, the Biden administration is hobbling its hemispheric agenda, as the partial boycott of the Summit of the Americas in May illustrated—and this at a moment when China’s influence in the region is on the rise.

Finally, a realistic policy aimed at promoting a more open Cuba, politically and economically, would recognize that if the United States hopes to have a positive impact on the dramatic changes underway on the island in the post-Castro era, it has to actively engage with Cuba’s new leaders and with its increasingly vibrant civil society.

In short, a policy based on U.S. national interests would look a lot like the policy Obama announced on Dec. 17, 2014—the policy Biden promised during the 2020 campaign to return to “in large part” but hasn’t. Obama’s policy was hailed by U.S. allies across Latin America and Europe and praised by both former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Pope Francis. One would be hard-pressed to name another U.S. foreign-policy initiative in recent decades so universally applauded. If Biden is prepared to craft a Cuba policy that makes sense as a foreign policy, he doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. He just has to put it back on the cart.

[bring-it-all-down]

I am begging people to familiarize themselves with US efforts to overthrow the Cuban government in order to reinstate private corporations. 

Prior to the 1959 revolution, American businesses owned the vast majority of the country’s sugar production as well as roughly 70% of the country’s land. This land was organized into a plantation system consisting of latifundia––large privately-owned pieces of land worked by slaves. This ownership was aided by America’s support (and installation) of the brutal dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who received monetary and military support in violently silencing the poor Cubans who opposed his suspension of civil liberties, including the right to strike. During the Cuban revolution, many of these landowners and business owners escaped to America rather than cooperating with the revolution and allowing their property to be nationally controlled. JFK in 1963 admitted that Batista’s regime was the fault of the US.

After the nationalization of Cuba’s industries, like sugar plantations, oil refineries, and banks, the U.S. authorized the CIA to begin attempts to overthrow the government and re-establish American private corporations on the island.

The first such attempt was the Bay of Pigs invasion in April of 1961. The invasion was carried out by a combination of CIA-funded Cuban exiles (named the Democratic Revolutionary Front) and members of the US military. The 1,400 invaders where defeated after only three days, however, after Castro took over leadership of the Cuban troops.

Following this embarrassment, JFK announced a full trade embargo on Cuba, beginning in February 1962. This trade embargo is still in place and has denied Cuba roughly $130 billion over the past 6 decades, according to both Cuban and United Nations estimates.

In November of 1961, the US government created another project to overthrow the Cuban government, titled Operation Mongoose. This project was more secretive and sinister than the Bay of Pigs invasion, involving political, psychological, military, intelligence, and assassination components meant to destabilize the entire Castro regime and bring the island back under American control. This operation distributed anti-Castro propaganda in Cuba, the US, and worldwide; funded militias in Cuba; established guerilla bases throughout the country; carried out attacks on power plants, oil refineries, sugar mills, and other manufacturing sites; and attempted multiple times to assassinate Castro and other Communist Party members (the CIA planned at least 500 assassination attempts against Castro in his lifetime). The Operation was scaled back in late 1962 due to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In conjunction with Operation Mongoose, the US considered implementing Operation Bounty––distributing leaflets around Cuba offering significant monetary rewards for the murder of Castro and a handful of other party members––and Operation Northwoods––committing acts of terrorism against US military and civilians in the US and Cuba and blaming them on Cuba. These projects were both allegedly ultimately rejected.

From 1960 to 1962, the US facilitated Operation Peter Pan, in which Catholic “charities” and the US government sent 14,000 unaccompanied children (mainly of upperclass families) to the US so they wouldn’t be enrolled in the government’s literacy campaign. While many children were eventually reunited with their families, others were placed in foster families as far away as Illinois and New York. They were all made to learn English and speak only in English in the orphanages in which they all lived for at least 6 months. The result was an alienation from their Cuban culture and an indoctrination into US propaganda.

On October 6, 1976, CIA-assisted Cuban exiles planted bombs on Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, departing from Barbados and heading toward Jamaica. The bombs detonated, exploding the plane and killing all 73 passengers, including the entire Cuban Olympic fencing team. Two of the terrorists, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles eventually moved to the US, and Bosch was pardoned by George H.W. Bush in 1990.

In 2010, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) created ZunZuneo, named “Cuban Twitter.” This social media platform, designed to undermine the communist Cuban government, spammed its users with propaganda and collected private data to assist them in fomenting a revolution among Cuban youths.  

These are just the very basics of the US’s efforts to overthrow the Castro government and reinstitute Cuba as a resource for American capitalism and imperialism. If you want to talk about whatever protests may or may not be happening in Cuba right now, you cannot do so outside of this context. You cannot talk about the poverty of Cuba without placing the blame on American embargoes.

If you want to discuss America’s understanding of Cuban humanitarian need, you cannot do so without reckoning with America’s use of Guantanamo Bay on the same island which we are supposed to believe they want to liberate.

Just last week, the President submitted a budget to Congress, asking for $20,000,000 to fund support for private businesses in Cuba and $13,000,000 to find Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which transmits American propaganda in Spanish to Cuba. This office was created in the 1980s for the explicit purpose of undermining communism in Cuba.

This is not to say that every single Cuban is happy with the Cuban government at all times, but rather that the US has a vested interest in overthrowing the government and establishing a capitalist, US-friendly one in its place. Any international protest crowd that is full of American flags should be a GIANT tip-off that the CIA/US government might just be involved! Just imagine what the CIA is hiding when all of the information comes from declassified files!!!!!

[fffartonceaweek]

Cuban scientists yesterday as they found out that the vaccine they had been working on (Abdala) is 92.28% effective, among the highest in the world.

.

.

ALSO:

.

BREAKING: 184 countries vote to demand an end to the U.S. blockade on Cuba, adopting the UN Resolution, titled: "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo, imposed by the USA against Cuba" Only the United States and Israel voted against.