In recent days the media has been focusing on the US President threatening to “Take over Cuba”. He elaborated further according to him, “I can take it, make it and do whatever I want with it”. It is strange to hear the US President speak about another sovereign country in this manner, evidently President Trump seems to understand sovereignty only in terms of the US and sees no relevance of it to its neighbors, as clearly illustrated in case of Venezuela. Americans from his party tend to brush it aside by saying that his style, but that’s exactly the point, that can’t be his style as a President of US or any other country, a verbal threat from a person in power cannot be condoned or legitimatized as part of international relationship.
The abuse of Cuba is beyond political
ideological difference, or a democracy’s anger at communist ideology, it is
historically planned control of the entire region by the United States to make United
States of Americas under the total control of the US. The stubbornness of
Cuba is seen as hinderance of what could be for the United States. The stance
of the US towards Cuba shows limited variation under Republican or Democratic
Presidency; though targeted extensive, planned, long term action can be traced
to documents and laws put in place by Republican governments. This has taken a
leap forward, almost making it an outlier under Donald Trump’s current
Presidency.
The False Narrative- Pre-emptive Wars are seen
as Security Measure by the US
While pre-emptive strike found a conceptual
spot in military strategic measures, after the attack on Twin towers in New
York, in 2001, the concept could be considered to be much older. Though
President Bush or Bush doctrine was initiated after 9/11, a policy that argued
waiting for an actual attack is too risky, justifying the pre-emptive use of
force to destroy threat before they mature. This was the conceptual base and
rationale for invading Iraq, apparently to destroy weapons of mass destruction,
address human rights violation and liberate Iraq.
Neither the US or its President or any other
global leader were held accountable for an invasion on false claims of presence
of weapons of mass destruction. The best indication of how Iraq fared upon being saved by the US is
that in 1990 one Iraqi dinar was equivalent to 3.211 USD and in 2003 after the
war one USD was equivalent to 1,400 to 3,000 Iraqi currency. It would also
interesting to note that access to natural resources in Iraq happened when the
country currency was in for a free fall.
Whether through Human Rights Watch or other
means the United States and Israel used Human Rights as strategy to ignore sovereign
rights of a nation they are displeased with. There is no legal standing for
their approach and for better effect they allege the targeted nations are
threat to the US and Isreal’s security. The violation of human rights has an
interesting take in case of Iraq, it had the best health care system in the
region in 1970’s to l990’s [1], this means even when Saddam Hussein was in
power the health care was provided to all, service continued to improve. In
1985, medical health care was free both in urban and rural areas, with free
primary health care reaching 93 percent of the population and 87 percent of
Iraqis had safe drinking water [2]. The infant mortality rate was 42 per 1000
[3], for comparison at that time infant mortality in India was 84 for 1000 [4].
As per data health care was affected by
sanctions than the alleged weapons of mass destruction or abuses by the Iraqi
government or ruler. In 2002, infant mortality was 46 per 1000 this because of
adverse impact of sanctions set in place by the US [5] Clearly human rights
violations was not as stark as made out to be by the US and Western media. The
point here being human rights is achievable only when a viable sovereign nation
exits, in the absence of the same the concept of human rights carried little
significance other than for US or EU or UN to enact sanctions on the countries
they believe have crossed the line. Often it is the sanctions that cripple the
nation and destroy the chance to uphold human rights of their citizens. While
sanctions do not benefit the targeted country or its citizens, it does ensure
slow genocide of the nation, sufficient to make its sovereignty vulnerable
for outside invasion, this is clearly seen in case of countries like Cuba and
Venezuela.
It may be argued that UN sanction on Iraq was
result of its attack on Kuwait but some aspects remain unexplained for Iraq
accused Kuwait of economic trade war and over production of oil in scale was
done without any need for it. It is clear that Kuwait’s increased production during
most part of late 1980’s, so much that led to a price difference of $8 per
barrel, this rarely happens lowering of price usually leads to price difference
of 50 cents or more per barrel. Given the stark difference in price is it then
surprising Iraq saw it as an economic war fare?
Another
aspect to be considered is if invasion is the reason for sanctions, then how
come Israel has never been sanctioned for criminal occupation of Palestine and
numerous invasions of countries in the region under one pretext or other?
Why are sanctions selectively applied? Why has the United State never faced
sanctions for its invasion of other sovereign nations, for bombing them,
for mass murder on international waters or kidnapping the leader of another
sovereign nation. Yes, the United State is a powerful nation and it may be
difficult to implement it, but the question is why does it not even exist at
the conceptual level as a Just option.
The strangest of all at present The Economist
is putting the narrative that seizing Venezuelan President may have been a
success and could have paved way for democracy and smooth election and people
are very happy with the turn of events. The journalist is literally in awe of the
United States’ actions- war crimes, terror acts and mass murder (over 75 people
killed at the same time) and a sovereign nation’s leader and his wife kidnapped
at dead of night. The Economist talks of it being a success [6] and as though
such acts are worthy of replication. Isn’t there a red line that The Economist
has crossed, or is it that The Economist believes that US and Western
democracies have sovereign rights and the rest are the backyard of the West, free
for all and game for all.
Cuba, the game for US control by destroying Cuba’s
Sovereignty
After the Spanish Colonizer were thrown out
with the help of the United States from Cuba, the US assumed it will be long
term player not only in trade but also an active player in the internal
governance reality of Cuba. Though Cuba tried to side step the issue, the US
ensured its role in internal affairs of Cuba, basically by transgressing
sovereign rights of Cuba, for this US had the Platt Amendment (1901). It gave
the US right to overwrite Cuban sovereignty, as per Article III of Platt
Amendment, “…the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the
preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate
for the protection of life, property, individual liberty and for discharging
the obligations with respect to Cuba…”
(7).
This right over Cuban Sovereignty was slated to
have been dealt with repealing of Platte Amendment and President Rosevelt spoke
of good neighbor policy! But what is ignored even within the new treaty based
on good neighborhood policy, was that it upheld Validation of Occupation Acts,
as indicated in Article 2 of Treaty of Relations between the United States and
Cuba[8], “All the acts effected in Cuba by the United States of America during
its military occupation of the island, …, have been ratified and held as valid;
and all the rights legally acquired by virtue of those acts shall be maintained
and protected”. Which literally means through validation of Occupation Acts,
ensured continuity of American commercial interests, so repealing of Platt
Amendment did not bring end to the United States interference in sovereign
rights of Cuba.
When Fidel Castro came into power and
nationalized companies owned by American among others, the United States kept
contesting about the decision and insisted on rightful compensation. This has
been cited as one of the reasons for sanctions against Cuba in 1960 along with for
establishing of a nation with Communist ideology in the region. Even President
Trump keeps focusing on Americans rights for compensation from Cuba for
nationalization of their assets. But, is this interpretation, right? For most
countries when fighting for their independence have nationalized the properties
had held by their colonizers, it is strange to speak about rights of colonizer
who have been using and abusing resources of the colonized country.
America does state that it has never
nationalized any foreign assets but that is a partial reality. For properties belonging
to the enemy were confiscated, and every State in the United States passed a
Confiscation Act. The Congress did urge the former owners be compensated for
their loss but that was adhered to only by South Carolina [9]. As the United
States itself refused to provide compensation, the British Parliament
ultimately indemnified a large number of loyalists in amount exceeding £ 3 million [9].
Given the above reality how is just, legal or even logical that the
United States insist Cuba should compensate American companies for the natural
process of sovereign nations taking control over its natural resources and
assets.
Cuban Political ideology and the US desire to make the call for Cuba
States in Americas had a process of setting up a framework for
international relations and initially the United States did not play the
central role, the United States representative were often observer or
participants. Among the States that held Inter American Conference focus was on
international governance issues, sovereignty of all nations and non-recognition
of all acquisition made through territorial conquest. In 1945, Inter American
Conference on Problems of War and Peace was held in Mexico City and the meeting
resulted in Act of Chapultepec, participants for the conference were the US and
19 Latin American countries. The Act of Chapultepec affirmed the following
principles:
a) The Proscription of territorial conquest and the non-recognition of
all acquisitions made by force
b) The condemnation of intervention by a State in the internal and
external affairs of another State.
c) The recognition that every war or threat of
war affects directly all civilized people and endangers the greater principles
of Liberty and justice which constitutes American ideal and standard for its
international policy!
d) It
proclaimed the principle of collective defense through regional pacts [10].
The emphasis on sovereignty has been focused
and upheld in Gondra Treaty (1923) adopted in Chile, to avoid and prevent
conflicts between American States [11]. In 1933, the Montevideo Convention in
Uruguay reaffirmed the principle that States are juridically equal and enjoy
the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. Under Article 4, it
was reiterated the principle “No State” has the right to intervene in the
internal or external affairs of another [12].
The shift in stance with regard to interference
in sovereign reality of other states or the scope for it was created within the
Charter of Organization of American States. Within Chapter I, II and IV the OAS
reaffirms the very extensive purpose of the organization and the principles
that should govern the conduct of the Member States in their reciprocal
relations. In order to promote peace and security within the continent, it
is important to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due
respect for principles of non-interference [13].
This is
exactly where the difference and capacity for the United States to dictate
crept in, for when it is decided that “it is important to promote and
consolidate representative democracy” that in itself is a clear interference in
the sovereignty of another nation, for that’s the crux of the decision to
consider only representative democracy can bring peace and also other forms
political ideology should be discouraged or banned. Added on to is the
selectivity in application of principle of non-interference, when it asserts
“with due respect for principles of non-interference”; this made it clear that
principles of non-interference are conditional and based on what is assumed to
be “with due respect for …”. This attitude has continued and the reason why
President Trump feels he has the moral and political authority to decide
communist ideology is unacceptable in Cuba.
Redefinition of Rights as one that is enforced from outside?
Within the context genocide of nations, there are two types of rights
that clearly attains prominence, the rights of individuals as a person or
individual within a nation, and rights of a nation as a live entity. At start
when International Conferences of American States happened or with Gondra
treaty or Montevideo Convention, when the United State was more an observer
than in the driver’s seat (the US became central force through the way
institutional structure evolved or the fact the OAS headquarters was and continues to be in the United States) the
focus was on sovereignty of nations and non-interference within another
nation’s internal matters. This changed totally and the shift began with focus
on need for representative democracy over any other political ideology and then
it began to focus on dismantling of any deviation in political ideology. It
also happened along with focus on collective security for the region, for which
it was natural main role would be that of the US given its role in World War II
and subsequently and the reality of the US military budget being close to a
trillion USD and that highest military budget of any other country in Latin
America, South America and the Caribbean is that of USD 20 billion of Mexico,
the military budget for Venezuela and Cuba that President Trump specifically
targets on is around USD 120 million. Clearly none of the countries are any
match to 1 trillion USD budget of the US, it seems to evolve.
The 1992 amendment of the Charter of Organization of American States was
adopted through Protocol of Washington, signed on December 14th
1992, this brought the focus further away from sovereignty of nations. In
Chile, Commitment to Democracy and the Renewal of the inter-American system and
adopted the resolution 1080 on representative democracy and stated it is the
indispensable condition for stability, peace and development of the region. It
also set up mechanisms for an automatic response to any illegal interruption of
the democratic process in any country of the hemisphere [14,15]. These two
provisions allowed OAS to act promptly in case of deviation from representative
democracies among countries in the region [14]
While the article on project Muse does try to indicate that the desire
for upholding representative democracy was existing sentiment across countries
for decades, this is not true [16]. Prior to creation of OAS and during the
initial period of OAS the focus was not on any specific political ideology and
that was evident in the case of Gondra Treaty or Montevideo Convention where
need for Sovereignty and non-interference in internal matters of other
countries was highlighted.
There was hardly any country with representative democracies among OAS
members in 1980 but by 1990 there was a major shift towards Democratic
governance across States in the region. One the major reason for this shift was
the active often military role played by the United States. The US played a
military role in enforced democracy across Latin American countries; in Panama it
was to protect US interests at first the then President Manel Noriega was
overthrown, who earlier was CIA informant but soon parted ways because of his alleged
involvement in drug trade and money laundering, and the democratically elected
Guillermo Endara became the country President after using military force. Since
then, Panama has been a democracy but its military was disarmed as the US
thought it would be the best way to prevent future coups and it is totally
dependent on the US for external security. This is seen in case many other
countries with or without a standing army.
In Dominican Republic, the US troops were deployed to prevent a
perceived communist takeover during a civil war, the action was justified as
necessary for saving American lives and ensuring democracy. In Argentina, the military dictatorship of
Jorge Rafael Videla overthrew democratically elected President Isabel Peron,
this had the silent support of Ford Administration. In Bolivia, the US
government was displeased by President Juan Jose Torres convening a People’s
Assembly for representatives of specific proletarian sectors of society-
miners, unionized teachers, students and peasants. This was seen as an attempt
to lead the country towards left wing direction. The US supported the 1971 coup
that toppled President Juan Torres and put Hugo Banzer in power. Torres who
fled Bolivia was kidnapped and assassinated in 1976 and it was done as part of
Operation Condor [9], the US backed and financed initiative which lasted from
1975 to 1983 (when Argentinean military junta fell) with main focus of
eliminating left wing sympathizers in South America. As part of Operation
Condor success story, 60,000 to 80,000 left sympathizers were killed and
400,000 injured [17]. This is the best success story of the US human rights
initiative in Latin America which no one talks about.
The US continued it enforce gun point democracies in other countries in
Latin America; it included Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominica Republic, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Among these the intervention
in Brazil the coup against social democrat Joao Goulart was carried with
support of the US, in order to prevent Brazil from becoming another China or
Cuba. This shift was considered most relevant, as Brazil the fifth most
populous country in the world, played a crucial role in pushing the rest of
South America into pro-Washington, anticommunist group of nations.
In 2001, OAS adopted the Inter-American Democratic Charter [11/8], under
this charter Organization of American States recognizes that representative
democracy indispensable for the stability, peace, and development of the
region, and that one of the purposes of OAS is to promote and consolidate
representative democracy, with due respect for principles of nonintervention.
It further goes on to state “Recalling…adopted a democracy clause which
establishes that any unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the
democratic order in a state or the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable
obstacle to the participation of the state’s government in the Summits of the
Americas process”. It also makes it clear without agreeing to enforced representative
democracy, there is limited scope for States participation in economic growth
and social development based on Justice, equity and democracy [18].
The charter further states on protection of democracy for which there is
an “established mechanism for collective action in case of a sudden or
irregular interruption of the democratic political institutional process or of
the legitimate exercise of power by the democratically-elected government in
any of the Organization’s member states, thereby fulfilling a long-standing
aspiration of the Hemisphere to able respond rapidly and collectively in the
defense of democracy. Along with
collective action to intervene in case of irregular interruption, the charter
almost in line with preemptive strike speaks of but also calls for ongoing and
creative work to consolidate democracy as well as a continuing effort to
prevent and anticipate the very causes of the problems that affect the
democratic system of government.
Game of Sovereignty and Human Rights, the American Passion for total
control of the region
After World War II and its role in the outcome, the United States
probably decided it has the right to oversee and direct the course of events that
would impact the region and to control sovereign profile of countries in Latin
America, South America and Caribbean. The US probably saw it as apt option.
After all, when looking from top down everything is but a chess piece, waiting
to be baited and moved around.
The relationship between the US and Cuba was thriving before 1960
sanctions by the United States, this was the story for six decades prior to the
sanctions. The total export from Cuba was dominated by the US, it accounted for
65-70 percent of the same. The bilateral trade between the US and Cuba,
accounted to exceed USD 1.3 billion in 1958, with export primarily dominated by
raw sugar, unmanufactured tobacco and nickel. Life and future were bright for
the elite and but not for the rest, this reality the US refuses to acknowledge,
till date.
US did not turn anti-communist government out of the blue, it has always
made its distain for any political ideology other than democracy. For the US,
Cuba is a disturbing reality, as the communist ideology would take way the
chance the US has in ensuring total control over the region, almost like “One
person, one vote” to be unrealistically synonym to “One political ideology for
one vote in the region as a nation”; that is a clear permanent interference in
Cuban sovereignty as it is to any nation of the region.
Against this background what is a puzzle is, why does the US not
understand after decades, that it is a country in the region and in the globe;
its sovereignty is as relevant as any other country’s not more and not less.
If the US could understand this reality, there would be peace not just in the
region but in the globe.
How the game is played:
a) Systematic erosion of Cuban sovereignty, with long term plans be it
in trade, agricultural production such as sugar, presence of American companies
in most spheres of economic activities, ensuring that Cuba was totally
dependent on the US not just for exports but imports as well, though these
controls were subtle before sanction, they became explicit after it.
b) Cuba was never for Cubans prior to 1959, it was for elite Cubans and
American be it those who migrated from Cuba or not, that is what data
indicates. This was blatant in case of land ownership, where 73% of
agricultural land was owned by 9.4 percent of land owners (20). This land
ownership pattern emerged during prior to 1959, and could be traced to
Spanish-American War, where owners of sugar mills and land lost their assets to
American companies through debt foreclosure and direct investments; American companies
opted for vertical integration of their own processing industries in the United
States (21)
c) Prior to 1959, the difference between rural and urban areas were
stark, around 41% of rural population were entirely illiterate, the number of
schools and human resource were limited and as a result classrooms were
chronically over crowded and lacked adequate number of desks, blackboards and
books.
d) If the government of Castro found support it was because of their
attempt to make Cuba for Cubans beyond rural and urban divide, as a result by
2000, 97 percent of Cubans aged between 15-24 were literate. This was made
possible through basic restructuring and opening of Cuban Schools along with
817 literacy centers were opened to further reach out to rural population,
young professionals who had strong literacy skills were sent as volunteers to
rural areas. The aim of this approach was to educate every Cuban and teach them
to read and give those who live in the city a chance to experience rural living
[22].
e) What is remarkable is that in spite cruel and inhumane sanctions on
Cuba out of spite and vested interests, Cuba still managed to retain high
standard for their education system and the same is emphasized by a world bank,
a draft country analysis about education situation in Cuba as of 2000. According
to the report “The record of Cuban education is outstanding: universal school
enrolment and attendance; nearly universal adult literacy; proportion female
representation at all level, including higher education; a strong scientific
training base, particularly in chemistry and medicine; consistent pedagogical
quality across widely dispersed classrooms; equality of basic educational
opportunity, even in impoverished areas, both rural and urban. In recent study
of Latin American and Caribbean countries ranked Cuba first in language and
math achievement” [23]
f) Another reality that may disturb President Trump’s narrative is the
health care management in Cuba. Even prior to 1959, Cuba had very good health
care but it was concentrated in the capital and the cities. The rural area had
minimal health care, if at all. To elaborate on the discrepancies, Havana
housed almost half of its hospital beds, leaving the rural
population-especially in certain parts like Oriente with no medical
infrastructure. A clear indication how discrepancies get glossed over is seen
when internationally Cuba boasted of strong national health metrics including
lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America, in rural Cuba infant mortality
rate reached 100 per 1000 live birth.
g) Tasked with addressing extreme discrepancy, Castro Government brought
change in health care through an integrated approach, where household income
improvement and education were seen part of health improvement strategy.
Through 1959 agrarian reform land deeds were distributed to 150,000 landless
framers and as part of education 200,000 youth volunteers reached across the
country and taught 700,000 to read and write.
h) To strengthen health care system in the country Cuban Government had
clear strategies in place, within the firm foundation that Health care is a
right, available to all equally and free of charge. The basic strategies at the
policy level included Preventive and Curative services are integrated; the
public participates in development of the health care system and its
functioning; health care activities are integrated with economic and social
development; and Global health Cooperation is a fundamental obligation of the
health system and its professionals. [24] It has led to a situation where
health care is within the public sector and private health care is not an
option [25]
i) As a result of the wholistic, contextual, long term strategic
planning and implementation: in 1960 Rural Medical Service (RMS) was
established, posting hundreds of newly graduated physician volunteer to remote
area offering service; by 1970 number of rural hospitals reached 53; Provincial
medical and nursing schools were also established to decentralize training and
encourage professionals to practice in the regions often areas underserved; and
another important incentive was free tuition, academic achievement the sole
prerequisite for admission to courses in health field [26]
j) What is commendable is that while the US President and his supporters
talk about Cuba so disparagingly, many health care professional in the US think
the US health care system can benefit from understanding and adapting relevant
aspects of Cuban health care. Cuba, a developing country with all limitation
through sanctions still handled the COVID-19 pandemic exceptionally level and
even supported Italy with manpower to combat the pandemic [18]. Unlike other
countries Cuba focused on Primary Health Care and it has the highest
doctor-to-patient ratios in the world; it is 8.4 per 1000 people, double of
Switzerland ratio. For comparison the U.K average is 3 doctors per 1000 and it
is 2.6 for the US [26].
k) All these above achievements are when US is having ball ensuring
sanctions on Cuba are comprehensive and impact all sectors of Cuban economy,
and the US has been enduring inhumane invasion of Cuban sovereignty for
decades. The US first started with arms embargo in 1958, which was when abusive
governance made it clear the then President Fulgencio Batista had turned over
80 percent of Cuban population against and he had limited future in Cuban
politics.
After a revolution, Fidel Castro came to power and asserted communist
governance ideology in Cuba.
This led to President Eisenhower proclamation of embargo on oil trade
with Cuba and upon which Cuba began to trade with Soviet Union for oil and the
oil was to be processed by American oil companies in Cuba. To avoid this, the
US decide to run Cuban governance remotely and told American companies not to
process oil from Soviet Union. The natural response to this total
administrative invasion by US was the nationalization of American companies in
Cuba by Castro’s government. Which meant total embargo of all trade with Cuba
by the US, with medicine and food being exempted.
The relationship did not go smooth even during embargo by the US, the
move for placement of Soviet nuclear missile within Cuba, led to a complete
embargo on trade between US and Iran. The situation continues even today with a
short respite from 2015 to 2017.
The planned Chokehold over Cuba by the US
While placing sanctions on countries have been carried out by countries
other than the US, these include the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan,
Australia; none have been brutal as the US in using sanctions to throttle a
sovereign nation. It is interesting to note that sanction are tools available
to powerful nations, for unless collective sanctions by small nations
happen, sanctions as a tool are beyond the reach of small nations.
Only the US is capable of carrying out illegal invasion of another
country and calling it Epic Fury or Operation Absolute Resolve; under these
titled invasion acts of mass murder, kidnapping, assassination of leaders along
with family member, mass murder of school children, destruction of government
including school, universities, research institutes, historical monuments all
happened but the governments in the West and the US asserted it as democratic
measure for security of Americans. But Americans and American President often
state these actions as way to free the citizens of another nations, the
American way. A privilege available to the West and largely used by the US.
While the might of its military is what the US wields over many nations
across the globe, with regard to Western Hemisphere it has already a so-called
democratic process in place to ensure total control over many countries in
Western Hemisphere. Taking the case of Cuba, the Good Neighbor Policy ensured
the US had a right to over see Cuban governance, though it was dismantled
through communist revolution, the financial arrangement set in place for
decades between the US and Cuba ensured the US had scope to ensure success of
its sanctions on Cuba.
The total disregard for sovereignty of Cuba is evident, when The
Helms-Burton Act (1996) is officially called Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act. There was nothing liberating or democratic about the Act with
regard to Cuba. As per Title III of the Act, US nationals including Cuban
exiles can sue foreign individuals and companies that ‘traffic’ in or profit
from properties expropriated by the Cuban government after 1959. The fact that
US dollar plays a significant role in financial transactions and many companies
would have other financial ties with US thereby making it very difficult for
these companies to fight against US extraterritorial sanctions, though it is
illegal. It was suspended by successive administration and was activated in May
2019 by President Donald Trump. The extraterritorial nature of this Act further
emphasized by Title IV on visa restriction, directs the U.S State Department to
deny visa and entry into the US to foreign nationals (and their corporate
executives or family members) who traffic in confiscated Cuban property.
Prior to this, the US through The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
ensured total embargo on all trade between the US and Cuba. This was followed
by The Trading with the Enemy Act in 1963, it legally froze all Cuban assets in
the U.S and implemented an almost total ban on financial transactions, imports
and exports. Under Regan administration unable to control role played by Cuba
in supporting arms resistance groups in Americas, the US government designated
Cuba as a State sponsor of terrorism, whereby foreign entities and
international banks encounter massive financial risks that deter anyone from
engaging in legitimate business with Cuba. In 1992, The Cuban Democracy Act was
put in place to tighten impact of embargo after collapse of Soviet Union.
Besides all of these measures, the US uses the power of US dollar through
Extraterritorial Financial Enforcement whereby foreign entities and
international banks risk massive financial penalties if they facilitate
transaction with Cuba.
What golden age of Cuba prior to 1959 the US is fighting for
President Trump often expresses his concern for the Cubans and how
communist government in Cuba destroyed the future of Cubans. Hence, it is
important to understand the best time of Cuba prior to 1959. Data indicates a
different reality, there was a Cuba for the Cuban government, elite and
American companies where everything could be considered picture perfect, but
majority of the Cubans lived outside this frame.
It is best to cite Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. “The corruption of the
Government, the brutality of the police, the government’s indifference to the
needs of the people for education, medical care, housing, for social justice
and economic justice… is an open invitation to…revolution”.
In 1950’s Cuba’s GDP was almost at par with that of Italy, average
industrial workers’ salary was the world’s eight highest, and Cuba was one of
the most developed countries in the region. But a third of Cubans lived in
poverty. Americans had nothing to complaint, for they did not just control the
arable land and sugar industry, they had the support of Cuban President who was
willing to negotiate lucrative relationship both with the American Mafia, who
controlled drugs, gambling and prostitution business in Havana; at the same
time ensured large U.S based multinational companies are awarded lucrative
contracts.
The hold of America over sovereign rights of Cuba is best expressed by
historian Louis A Perez Jr., author of the book On Becoming Cuban; “Daily life
had developed into relentless degradation, with the complicity of political
leaders and public officials who operated at the behest of American interests”.
The impact of the golden age of Cuba and that of American interest on
ordinary Cubans can be best captured in the words of Arthur Meier Schlesinger,
personal advisor to President Kenedy “I loved Havana and was horrified by the
way this lovely city had unfortunately been transformed… My fellow countrymen
walked the streets, picked up fourteen-year-old Cuban girls and threw coins
just for the pleasure of watching men roll around in the sewer and pick them
up. One wondered how Cubans seeing this reality – could regard the United
States in any other way than with hatred.
Present Day reality of Cuba, US goal of Genocide of Cuba!
If there is terrorism being practiced by any state in Americas through
military power, financial might and shrewd criminal use of law as it plays
between domestic and international law, it is the United States. The United
States had no moral or legal rational to enforce sanctions of Cuba to the
extent it has all in the false claims of caring for human rights reality of
Cuban and of security concerns of US. It is laughable that President Trump
keeps asking the Senate for over a trillion dollar for next year military
budget but states it has security concerns with regard to alleged drones in
Cuba. Seriously what kind of military model of advanced technology exists in
America that its so scared of any and every country in the region and beyond.
If the fear is real, then it would be foolish for any other nation to be
buying military products from the US for even after spending billions or
trillions it is only Fear that remains.
At first, it was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that was threating
the greatest military power the US, then it became ballistic missiles and scope
for nuclear arsenal that was a threat from Iran, and now the most powerful
nation in the globe wants to ensure genocide of Cuba because of its drones?
Evidently the expenditure on military products crossed from billions to
trillions, it seems like the threshold for fear with US government is taking a
deep dive!
How long will international community be silent to the hegemony of the
US in the region and total criminal misuse of the concept “Security threat”.
US President is all out to “take Cuba” and do what he wishes with it.
The Senate and the Congress are happy to see their President take the lessons
from Hitler a step forward, no need to mention anything negative of the
population of the country to be destroyed, say how much love the US feels for
the citizens of the Prey-nation and then throttle it for decades and if it
still does not let go of its sovereignty threaten it with military action
through pre-emptive attack for security of the US.
There is a total embargo in place, Cuba is struggling for energy,
medicine, food; energy crisis has affected hospitals, pumping stations, public
transportation and rubbish collection. While the country is moving towards
total shut down, the US President is using way and means possible to further
ensure Genocide of Cuba. For which he has based on false accusation of threat
to US from Cuba, authorized the US to impose tariffs or penalties on any
foreign country, as well as secondary sanction on foreign financial
institutions, that directly or indirectly supply oil or fuel to Cuba.
In addition, the President imposed sanction on Cuban Government
officials who are responsible for Repression in Cuba. Under the guise of
fighting against repression in Cuba, it is strengthening the scope for genocide
of Cuba, a country that is a thorn in its future plans to rule over the Western
Hemisphere with Sovereignty being fully and totally concentrated with the US.
If you doubt my word, take the simple current example, CIA director John
Ratcliffe has met his Cuban counterpart at the interior ministry in Havana,
after the US renewed an offer of $100m of aid to ease the effects of its oil
blockade.
What is not stated is that the blockade is because of US policies and
nothing else. This is carrot side of negotiations, an approach held close by
the Western countries. But here the US itself has ensured the government of
Cuba is made dysfunctional and then it accuses Cuba of misgovernance and being
dysfunctional. It accuses Cuban government of being incapable of taking care of
its citizens, so the US will give $100m but it will not be given to the
government but to be distributed in coordination with the Catholic Church and
other reliable independent humanitarian organization, totally bypassing the
Cuban government.
Cuban Foreign Minister said, Cuban government does not, as a matter of
policy, reject foreign aid offered in good faith whether bilateral or
multilateral. He further added the best way would be to de-escalate energy,
economic, commercial, and financial blockade measures, which has recently
intensified.
What is ignored in the
US offer of aid via CIA official:
a) This not a normal arrangement of offering aid, here the perpetrator
of a crime, ensuring genocide of Cuba, is offering aid on humanitarian grounds
(which means US that created humanitarian suffering) or as a savior of Cuban
population.
b) It is total invasion of another country, because to humanitarian aid
is given after telling the ruling government step aside and then we will help
your citizens on humanitarian basis. Here the perpetrator of crime and savior
is one and the same-the US.
c) The US wants Cubans to understand that they have total power over
Cuban government and if the Cubans wants situation to improve, they must
overthrow their government and become permanent slaves to American Hegemony.
d) For me, America is like a rapist who has his victim totally under
control, both to torture and reward for small acts of surrendered obedience.
Here the US wants to destroy Cuba, its identity, its sovereignty and most of
all its dignity to exist. It is a bigger game than fight with Cuba, it is an
example for the entire region so that countries in Americas will accept US
control over western hemisphere.
Can a treaty, international agreement be valid if illegal and criminal
Provisions are included
According to Vienna Convention Law of Treaties (VCLT) a treaty or
bilateral/multilateral agreement, as per Article 53 of the convention, is void
if at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with peremptory norm of general
international law widely known as Jus Cogens. Violation of Jus Cogens includes
agreement invoking illegal force against another State; Treaties recognizing
territorial acquisition brought about by the threat or use of force.
It would create a situation of absolute voidness, if the agreement
inherently is violating a Jus Cogens norm, then the entire treaty or agreement
is null and void from its inception. Unlike standard civil contracts where
illegal clauses can sometime be removed, a treaty that violates Jus Cogens
cannot be salvaged, the illegality taints the entire agreement.
Besides, as per the UN Charter, Article 2 (1), the organization is based
on the principle of the Sovereign equality of all its members; Article 2 (3)
All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such
a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not
endangered. Article 2 (4) All members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purpose of the UN.
At every point prior to 1959 and beyond, America has clearly indicated
it assumes right over sovereignty of Cuba, both through its agreements, actions
and declaration on the matter. This is a violation of sovereign rights of Cuba,
often violation of human rights is seen as a ground for violation of sovereign
rights. This is a selective attitude for
there are many instance of violation of rights within the US but rarely any
attempt made by any state to invade sovereign rights of US in any manner. The
US has also not ratified the Human Rights Convention but the US is self-declared
watch dog for human rights violation across the globe. And consider it its
moral duty to bomb countries to force them to adhere to human rights, or so the
US claims.
It is strange that Human Rights watch rarely has any concrete human
violation instances, but it does have many complaints in terms activists
seeking support for stance against the communist government. Many of the issues
mentioned exists in most countries, it seems more like an exaggerated
propaganda because of communist ideology. Can the US decide the political
ideology to be followed in Cuba or any other country?
The questions that remains are can the US through OAS insist on
democracy as the only ideology acceptable to the US that can be practiced or
used in sovereign nations within Western Hemisphere?
Are the agreements between Cuba and the US respectful of international
laws, Vienna Convention or UN Charter, when Good Neighbor Policy that continues
to validate the Occupation Acts as indicated in Article 2 of Treaty of
Relations between the US and Cuba; when Helms Burton Act is falsely claimed to
be liberating to the Cuba and its dismantling of sovereignty is ignored and
continues to be ignored sovereignty of Cuba?
Aren’t these agreements void as they violate Jus Cogens?
Isn’t it time that countries in Western Hemisphere put an end to
agreements that violate sovereignty of their nations and can be considered void
from conception?
Sovereignty for all or for None.
Molly Charles
References
1.https://edwebcontent.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/imports/fileManager/Lancet%20paper%20Thamer.pdf
2. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199109263251330
3. https://www.marcotrends.net/datasets/global-metrics/countries/irq/iraq/infant-mortality-rate
4. https://www.macrotrends.net/datasets/global-metrics/contries/ind/india/infant-mortality-rate
6. https://youtube.com/shorts/E8JN6TM1QBk?si=-3Hz7RDFPXU9RgzJ
Has Donald Trump succeeded in Venezuela?
7. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment
8. https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/treaty-5-29-34.htm
Treaty of Relations between United States
and Cuba, May 29, 1934
10. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/chapul.asp
The Avalon Project: Inter-American
Reciprocal Assistance and Solidarity (Act of Chapultepec): March 6, 1945.
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Treaty_(1923)
Pan-America Treaty (1923) -Wikipedia
12. Montovideo Convention on the
Rights and Duties of States- The Faculty of Law.
https://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01-1-02/rights-duties-states.html
13. https://www.oas.org/dil/1948%20charter%20of%20the%20organization%20of%20american%20states.pdf
15. https://www.oas.org/xxxiiiga/english/doc/oasrelevancetoday_eng.pdf
16. https://muse.Jhu.edu/article/225458
Project Muse- International Organisations and Democracy: The OAS and
Democratic Governance
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/operation_Condor
18. https://www.oas.org/OASpage/eng/Documents/Democratic_Charter.html
Democratic Charter
21. https://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_industry_in_Cuba
Accessed on May 18, 2026.
22. https://wn.wikipedia.org/wiki/education_in_Cuba
Accessed on May 18, 2026.
23. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/154191468749724038/pdf/multi-page.pdf
Accessed on May 18, 2029.
Lavinia Gasperini. 2000. The Cuban Education System: Lessons and Dilemmas. Latin America and Caribbean Regional Office: The World Bank. LCSHD Paper Series No:48
24. The Curious Case of Cuba-PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3464859/#bib23
25. No one left abandoned: Cuba’s National Health System since the 1959 Revolution
26. The Curious Case of Cuba-PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3464859/#bib23
27. Cuba leads the World in
Doctors per 1000 Capita-Latinometrics
https://www.latinometrics.com/articles/cuba-leads-the-world-in-doctors-per-capita-2023-12-02-1/
Comments
Post a Comment