From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Cuban Win at UN; Embargo Weakens
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:04:48 GMT

/** reg.cuba: 279.0 **/
** Topic: Cuban Win at UN; Embargo Weakens **
** Written  7:28 pm  Dec  9, 1992 by ttomasko in cdp:reg.cuba **
UN vote condemns U.S. trade embargo on Cuba
 
From The Militant, December 11,1992
 
By Sara Lobman
 
UNITED NATIONS--The United Nations General Assembly, meeting 
November 24, overwhelmingly approved a resolution condemning 
the U.S.-organized trade embargo against Cuba. Only the United 
States, Israel, and Romania opposed the resolution, a fact that 
reflected the decreasing isolation of Cuba in the world and the 
growing tensions between the different imperialist powers under 
the impact of the world economic crisis.
 
	Canada, New Zealand, and France, faced with the need to 
defend their own trade and markets, were among the 59 nations 
that supported the resolution.
 
	Seventy-one delegations, including Britain, Germany, and 
the rest of the European Community, abstained.
 
	The debate in the General Assembly came just a month 
after President George Bush signed into law the so-called Cuban 
Democracy Act, also known as the Torricelli bill. This measure is 
intended to tighten the U.S. embargo on Cuba--imposed more than 
30 years ago--by restricting its trade with other countries.
 
	It forbids foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to trade 
with Cuba and closes U.S. ports to ships that have called on Cuba 
within the previous six months. In addition, it bars any ships 
carrying goods or passengers "in which Cuba or a Cuban national 
has any interest."
 
	The stated aim of the Cuban Democracy Act is to hasten the 
collapse of the Cuban government. It seeks to use the huge weight 
of the U.S. economy in the world to hinder the ability of other 
countries to trade with Cuba.
 
	The UN resolution, submitted by Cuba, was titled "Necessity 
of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo 
Imposed by the United States Against Cuba." While the text of the 
resolution did not mention the United States by name, it 
expressed concern over the recent "promulgation and application 
by Member States of laws and regulations whose extra-territorial 
effects affect the sovereignty of other States and the legitimate 
interest of entities or persons under their jurisdiction, and 
freedom of navigation."
 
	The resolution called on all states to refrain from passing 
such laws, and to repeal or invalidate any that might already be 
in force. It also places a report and discussion on the 
implementation of the resolution before the 48th session of the 
General Assembly next year. Since the UN General Assembly does 
not have the power to make binding decisions, the vote on 
November 25 does not compel the United States to take any 
action.
 
VOTE REFLECTS COMPETING TRADE INTERESTS
 
	During the discussion the representatives of many 
governments pointedly explained that they could not allow a 
third party to determine who their country traded with. "The 
government of Mexico will always firmly reject any attempt to 
apply in its territory the legislation of any other state," stated 
Jorge Montano, Mexico's permanent representative to the United 
Nations.
 
	Ambassador Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg, representative of 
Brazil, said that subsidiary trade was regulated only "by Brazilian 
legislation, by international agreements to which Brazil is a party, 
and by the decisions of international organizations of which Brazil 
is a member."
 
	"Principles are involved which directly affect our economic 
interests," said the New Zealand representative in explaining why 
his government was supporting the Cuban resolution. The 
Canadian delegate made a similar point, while assuring the United 
States that Canada's vote "does not reflect involvement in a 
dispute between the United States and Cuba, or complacency with 
Cuba's human rights record."
 
	Britain's United Nations representative, speaking on behalf 
of the 12-nation European Community, criticized the "extra-
territorial application of U.S. jurisdiction" and called the U.S. law a 
"violation of a general principle of international law and the 
sovereignty of independent nations."
 
	Both Britain and Canada have enacted laws that forbid U.S. 
subsidiaries operating on their territory to obey the provisions of 
the Cuban Democracy Act.
 
U.S.-LED EMBARGO WEAKENS
 
	The inability of Washington to rally even its closet allies to 
its side in this vote is an indication of the difficulty it is having in 
maintaining the economic embargo against Cuba under conditions 
where every capitalist nation is competing for shrinking world 
markets.
 
	Capitalist countries today account for the majority of Cuba's 
trade. Canada, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, 
Britain, Japan, Italy, and Belgium are all engaged in significant 
business with Cuba. U.S. subsidiaries abroad carried out $718 
million worth of trade with Cuba in 1991,
 
	The increased trade with Cuba by other capitalist countries, 
and by U.S. subsidiaries abroad, has been a source of controversy 
within the U.S. ruling class. While there are those who want to 
prevent all trade with Cuba in order to destroy the revolution, a 
significant section of the ruling class argues that U.S. capitalists 
will be hurt by being denied access to a market courted by their 
rivals.
 
	Earlier this year the U.S. Justice Department filed charges 
against Cargill, Inc. the giant Minneapolis-based brain merchant, 
claiming that the company, three of its Minnesota executives, and 
two executives from Cargill International--its Geneva, 
Switzerland, affiliate--were part of a scheme to sell Cuban sugar 
on the world market.
 
BUSH GIVES LAST-MINUTE SUPPORT
 
	This conflict was reflected in the discussions that led to the 
signing of the Cuban Democracy Act in late October. Up until a few 
weeks before he signed the Torricelli bill into law, Bush had long 
opposed it, arguing that such a bill would lead to otherwise 
unnecessary conflicts with U.S. allies.
 
	His final decision to support the bill was based primarily on 
narrow electoral considerations, not the overall interests of the 
U.S. ruling class. President-elect William Clinton had seized on the 
Cuban Democracy Act in his presidential campaign and was 
making inroads among right-wing Cuban-Americans forces in 
Florida, long considered a Bush stronghold.
 
	In a final effort to win the presidential election, Bush 
jumped on the bandwagon, acting to show his new support for the 
bill in as partisan a way as possible. He even refused to invite the 
bill's chief sponsors, Democratic Congressman Robert Torricelli 
and Senator Robert Graham, to the signing ceremony.
 
	The fact that the U.S. rulers will pay for Bush's 11th-hour 
move was shown by the UN vote. Washington's position is 
particularly untenable at a time when the U.S. government is 
trying to push back the share of the market for agricultural 
products claimed by French and other European Community 
capitalists, by forcing them to decrease government protection of 
their exports. Washington is carrying out this campaign in the 
name of "free trade."
 
EMBARGO PART OF 30-YEAR CAMPAIGN
 
	In presenting the resolution to the General Assembly, 
Cuba's permanent representative to the United Nations, Alcibiades 
Hidalgo Basulto, reminded delegates of the more than 30-year 
history of aggression by the United States against revolutionary 
Cuba, calling the embargo the most serious form of this 
aggression. He explained that "the net of anti-Cuban laws 
constructed during 30 years by eight U.S. administrations has had 
an ominous influence" on Cuba's economy.
 
	Hidalgo explained that the U.S. embargo violated both 
international law and the United Nations Charter. Its aim, he said, 
is clearly to overthrow a sovereign government and to "impose 
upon the Cuban people a political, social, and economic system to 
the liking of the United States and selected by it and, essentially. 
to re-establish the domination the U.S. exerted on Cuba during the 
darkest period of our history."
 
	The Cuban statement explained that the U.S. legislation 
imposed severe restrictions on shipping "in violation of the 
principle of freedom of navigation."
 
	These laws violate the sovereignty not only of Cuba, but of 
other nations and of the citizens of the United States itself. "The 
freedom of [U.S.] citizens to travel to my country is restricted," 
Hidalgo told the United Nations.
 
	"Not even a single economic or social element of Cuban 
reality escapes to consequences of the blockade," the Cuban 
ambassador explained. The most recent studies estimate that the 
cost of the embargo to the Cuban people has been $38 billion in 
32 years.
 
	Other representatives speaking in favor of the Cuban 
resolution included Ambassador Nugroho Wisnumurti of 
Indonesia, who spoke on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, as 
well as the delegates from Venezuela, Iraq, and Zimbabwe.
 ________
The Militant newspaper is a socialist newsweekly.  An 
introductory subscription costs $10 for 12 weeks. Write to The 
Militant, 410 West Street, New York, NY. 10014. 

** End of text from cdp:reg.cuba **