On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.
edit: result of the vote: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/system/cache/media_attachments/files/113/398/372/180/881/996/original/82c4d1f509e933fa.jpg
Being of Cuban descent, I really hope that this is the first step towards repealing that embargo once and forma all. ¡Vida y patria!
Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.
And just like every year, the vote will do nothing.
it’ll add up to a hell of a lot of justified reparations when the US backs down.
yeah, The US backs down.
they backed down in Vietnam, they backed down in iran, somalia, they backed down investigating the Saudi Arabian terrorists in 9/11(which is almost all of them), and the list goes on.
the US is not often gracious about backing down or wise enough to back down prudently, but they do back down.
Because it’s Russia advocating to lift the embargo which was put in place because of the Cuban missle crisis right?
Since the 1960s, the United States has systematically punished the Cuban people through a stringent blockade on its economy for having declared and built a political and economic model different from the one advocated and directed by the United States.
It’s not about the economic model or the US wouldn’t be buddies with Vietnam. This is about United Fruit (now Chiquita), this is about Bacardi, all expropriated without a dime of compensation, and rightfully so for using de facto slave labour under the watchful eye of US-backed dictators, administrating the island as a de facto colony.
The Cuban revolution wasn’t socialist, it was one for independence. The guerillas, once in power, were eyeing vaguely DemSoc politics and a good relationship with the US. The US answered with the Bay of Pigs invasion etc, driving Cuba into the arms of the Soviet Union and acquiring an unhealthy habit of authoritarianism and non-industrialisation in the process, becoming dependent on the block overpaying for their sugar, them underpaying for oil, fertiliser, etc.
The difference to Vietnam? Vietnam was a French colony. The US got over the domino theory which made them wage war there, they never got over the expropriations and losing control over the colony, worst of all, driving it into the hands of their mortal enemy. To relent on the sanctions would mean reflecting on all that and I don’t think the US is politically capable of admitting such a gigantic mistake, both humanitarian and strategic, to themselves.
In a parallel universe, with saner heads in Washington prevailing, Cuba would now be negotiating alongside Puerto Rico about the details of US statehood.
There is no blockade of Cuba. It’s an embargo. There are no military ships blowing up anyone trying to trade with Cuba.
If I were to start a business out of Miami, Florida that sent an oil tanker to Cuba, what would happen to that oil tanker?
The company would be prosecuted and the ship seized the next time it docked at port. If the company was based in literally any other country, nothing would happen.
Do you actually believe the ship wouldn’t be intercepted with implied violence?
Let me guess, you also believe Republicans when they say abortion will be “left up to the states” right?
Why is it normalized that one country can block/embargo/complicate/whatever-you-want-to-call-it another country to the point of severely affecting the lives of millions of people … for what? because one country disagrees with the politics of another country?
If countries were able to do that, there would be no trade anywhere in the world.
Yet it’s been completely normalized for the past six decades between the US and Cuba.
Because the international order is based on economic and military might, not any sort of higher ideal or codified rules.
Well… Yeah. Who do you think would enforce any “rules”? And how would they?
Countries have complicated trade for centuries. Free trade is a modern exception, not the historical rule.
And in principle, countries have as much right to restrict trade with Cuba as they do with Russia and Israel. It’s the same principle that allows people to call for boycotts of Amazon and Starbucks. All of these things can affect the lives of millions, in an effort to bring about political change.
There is more countries with CVs than i thought. Also Brazil and Thailand? I wasn’t aware they had any sizeable navy to begin with.
Yes, although having the ship is only part of it. What the diagram can’t really show is that the US also has a global logistics system which supplies the carriers and their accompanying battle groups when they deploy to other side of the planet. That system has been decades in the making, it’s not something you can just buy, it requires a crazy amount of planning and organization.
I doubt the US could deploy every carrier effectively, but it can certainly put multiple battle groups at sea simultaneously and keep them there for a long time.
Some of those have been decommissioned. I know for sure the first one in the second column has, as I was stationed in that one.
And the bonhomme Richard basically got arsoned in port. The enterprise is definitely out of it since 2017, this graphics full of bs.
This is somewhat misleading. It’s not like US can deploy a massive fleet of carriers that overwhelms most of the worlds militaries. This is so US can maintain a presence, a mobile base, in parts of the world it seems important. Full time. This is just a carrier in each ocean, even during maintenance cycles.
A big difference is most of these other countries are not trying to project power far away, just defend their turf. For example does the number of carriers China has really matter? The contention is us carriers and bases in Asia vs all of China.
Oh definitely, they can’t all be deployed at once - but the ability to rotate them out means a sustained presence that nobody else can achieve. And the point is really more about the organization structure that supports those carriers and their accompanying battle groups - the US can control any part of the ocean anywhere in the world, for as long as they want. That kind of force projection is hard to compete with.
Why shouldn’t a country be able to decide not to trade with another country?
You are correct but the question was … why should a country prevent another country from being able to freely trade with every other country.
Just wait until China blockades Taiwan and uses the USAs blockade of Cuba as precedent
The problem being that Taiwan is a critical part of the entire global economy. TSMC fabricates ~50% of all semiconductor products in the world, but critically >90% of all fabrication at 5nm or lower (basically everything with a fabrication process less than a decade old). They are the leading edge. If you want to make a modern CPU, TSMC is your foundry.
By threatening Taiwan, China is holding a gun to the head of the entire world. Loss of TSMC’s fabrication would basically shut down the global computer industry.
I’d rather russia had just embargoed Ukraine, for the 2014 “revolution” instead of invading. And that China embargo Taiwan instead of invading if that ever comes to pass. Don’t you? It’s not even a siege as some people are portraying it, there are no secondary sanctions.
That said, I’d rather the embargo were lifted and relations were normalized, maybe Cuba would turn into a sort of Vietnam, but that would take more than just the US lifting restrictions, it would take reform on Cuba’s part as well. Even China agrees that Cuba needs market reforms e.g. https://www.diariolasamericas.com/america-latina/china-rompe-acuerdos-comerciales-cuba-ya-no-es-el-sugar-daddy-del-regimen-n5365604 and won’t invest in a dying economy unless they change, same as the US.
Unless the missile crisis is ongoing, or nationalization of Chiquita is recent, or Cuba was behind the JFK assassination, how the heck can we justify this?
There’s a ton of US money that would goto Cuba and benefit people in both countries.
But who cares if they do market reform? Sure that will affect their economic success but that’s on them. It’s not worth sanctions
Blockading Cuba has never made sense. If communism is an inferior failed system that can’t compete with the freedom of Capitalism (cue heavenly sunbeams and angel choirs) why not leave Cuba alone and let nature take its course?
There was a somewhat understandable reason initially; when the embargo was first started, it was because Cuba allowed the UUSR to use it as a forward base for missiles so they could reach the mainland US, which, understandably, the US wasn’t very happy about
But ever since the fall of the USSR it’s been absurd
Because the US knows communism is not an inferior system. But to run the argument it never works they need to embargo it to then say “see it doesnt work”.
Noted socialist (/s) Hillary Clinton advocated for that very thing.
The real reason behind the embargo at this point is that it makes a small but important voting bloc of Cuban expats in Florida happy.
