General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly To Reject Cuban Trade Embargo
Ron F | 01.12.2001 21:00
For the tenth year in succession the General Assembly of the United Nations has adopted a resolution calling for the United States to drop the economic, commercial and financial embargo that it first placed on Cuba in 1960.
30/11/2001
167 nations voted for lifting the criminal embargo, with the US supported only by its Middle East attack dog Israel and the aid dependent Marshall Islands.
James Cunningham, the US Ambassador to the United Nations stated the embargo is intended to put pressure on the Cubans to adopt a more democratic government that better respects human rights. Casual observers over the age of 4 will realise this is the complete opposite of US policy toward China, whose recent admission to the WTO establishes full trading relations but came with no human rights conditions.
Cunningham stated "the goal of our policy is to foster a transition to a democratic form of government, to protect human rights, to help develop a civil society and to provide for the economic prosperity that the Cuban government's retrograde economic policies are denying the Cuban people".
These appear laudable goals, but note that the embargo has had precisely the opposite effect.
The sincerity of these motives may be judged by comparing US policy toward other nations such as Colombia, which has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere, extraordinary inequalities, mass poverty, and a government with an intimate and well documented relationship with far-right death squads. According to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International annual country reports these death squads are responsible for the majority of disappearances and political murders. Leftist rebels opposed to the preponderance of local elites and US oil interests are responsible for the rest.
None of this appears a problem for the US, whose $1 billion plus "Plan Colombia" includes a chemical warfare component (with Monsanto delighted to provide the toxic goodies), together with cash, military equipment and training.
A quick scrutiny of the members of the "coalition against terrorism" will provide several more examples of apparent US amnesia - or is it contempt? - for the noble goals it reserves for its policy toward Cuba.
Meanwhile, in Cuba, and despite the disastrous effects of the embargo, many indicators of human well-being - life expectancy, infant mortality, malnutrition, school enrolment etc. - compiled by the UN, Save the Children, WHO, compare extremely well with other Latin American countries who have enjoyed US "concern" for human rights and poverty.
http://usfumigation.org/homepage.htm
167 nations voted for lifting the criminal embargo, with the US supported only by its Middle East attack dog Israel and the aid dependent Marshall Islands.
James Cunningham, the US Ambassador to the United Nations stated the embargo is intended to put pressure on the Cubans to adopt a more democratic government that better respects human rights. Casual observers over the age of 4 will realise this is the complete opposite of US policy toward China, whose recent admission to the WTO establishes full trading relations but came with no human rights conditions.
Cunningham stated "the goal of our policy is to foster a transition to a democratic form of government, to protect human rights, to help develop a civil society and to provide for the economic prosperity that the Cuban government's retrograde economic policies are denying the Cuban people".
These appear laudable goals, but note that the embargo has had precisely the opposite effect.
The sincerity of these motives may be judged by comparing US policy toward other nations such as Colombia, which has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere, extraordinary inequalities, mass poverty, and a government with an intimate and well documented relationship with far-right death squads. According to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International annual country reports these death squads are responsible for the majority of disappearances and political murders. Leftist rebels opposed to the preponderance of local elites and US oil interests are responsible for the rest.
None of this appears a problem for the US, whose $1 billion plus "Plan Colombia" includes a chemical warfare component (with Monsanto delighted to provide the toxic goodies), together with cash, military equipment and training.
A quick scrutiny of the members of the "coalition against terrorism" will provide several more examples of apparent US amnesia - or is it contempt? - for the noble goals it reserves for its policy toward Cuba.
Meanwhile, in Cuba, and despite the disastrous effects of the embargo, many indicators of human well-being - life expectancy, infant mortality, malnutrition, school enrolment etc. - compiled by the UN, Save the Children, WHO, compare extremely well with other Latin American countries who have enjoyed US "concern" for human rights and poverty.
http://usfumigation.org/homepage.htm
Ron F