|
WHY
BLOCKADE INSTEAD OF EMBARGO? The “embargo” definition does not fit in with the actions exerted against Cuba by the US government. All the way around, those actions go beyond that definition to typify “a blockade” as they pursue Cuba’s isolation, suffocation and immobility, with the crooked purpose of pushing its people to give up their decision of being sovereign and independent. The blockade concept comprises all the aforementioned, since “blockade” means to cut and close the bonds with the outside world in order to isolate and oblige the besieged country to surrender by force or starvation. To consider the blockade “a war action” was a principle accepted by International Law since the Naval Conference held in London in 1909. In accordance with this principle, such measure can be exerted only among belligerents. On the other hand, no International Law rule justify the so-called “pacific blockade”, which was a practice developed by the colonial powers during the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th . So controversial concept has no tradition even within the principles on International Law accepted by the United States of America, but American authorities’ memory is so bad that they have forgotten what they warned to France in 1916: “The United States do not recognize the right of any foreign power to hinder the exercise of non-interested country commercial rights, resorting to the blockade when a state of war does not exist”. “Embargo” is generally known as the legal manner of retaining assets in order to assure the fulfillment of an obligation lawfully accepted. It can also be a preventive measure of patrimonial character authorized by judge, court or competent authority with the same purpose of obliging the debtor to fulfill its commitments with their creditors. Is Cuba by chance debtor of the United States? Has Cuba committed any offense as a result of which the kidnapping and liquidation of its assets in favor of the United States can be authorized? The crystal-clear and convincing answer is No. Cuba has never been nor is today a threaten for the US national security , so that, the attempt to apply measures of legitimate defense with regard to the Island is an action against International Law, taking into account that International Law does not recognize subjective legitimate defense, nor justify the legitimate subjective defense brought into play by the Monroe Doctrine, which is in fact an aggression policy. Despite the “embargo” expression, that group of coercive and economically aggressive measures, are in fact an illegal blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba, therefore, such criminal behavior against the Island cannot be hidden behind legal figures unable to typify its real nature. The figure “embargo” is used by the US government to conceal the applying of wartime measures to Cuba, which are no less than a non-declared war against the Cuban people. The blockade against Cuba is the utmost expression of a genocide behavior aimed at intentionally provoke extremely hard living conditions for Cubans seeking to inflict total or partial physical damages that eventually led to weaken their decision of fighting and defeat any adversary. Although it wasn’t until February 7, 1962, that the total blockade against Cuba was formally implemented by the US government, different blockade policies were being applied since 1959. The sugar quota, prime and almost sole support of the Island economy and finances was suppressed while the US oil companies, which monopolized the energetic activity in the country, decided to suspend oil supplies and refused to refine the crude with the evident purpose of undermining key points of Cuban defense and economy able to paralyze the country. A sly boycott to any purchase of spare parts for a Cuban industry totally manufactured in the United States was added to the before mentioned measures with the same fruitless purpose. But when the US government realized that a partial blockade was not enough to make the Cuban people give in, a total blockade against the Island starting on February 7, 1962 midnight, was declared by the then US President John F. Kennedy, complying with the order given to him by the US Congress through the 620a Section of the Foreign Aid Act of September, 1961. The obvious purpose of the blockade sets up against the Cuban people human right to exert their self-determination, a right consecrated not only in the United Nations Charter, but in the Declaration on Human Rights and in number one articles of the International Treaty on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Treaty on Civil and Political Rights. Who violates the human rights of the Cuban people indeed? The aggression actions have been condemned by many UN resolutions. Let us quote only the 2625 Resolution of October 24, 1970, approved by the 25th Period of Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, where the sovereign equality of the States, peoples’ self-determination and all the States obligation of no interfering in the internal affairs of other States, are established. Likewise, that Resolution establishes that “No State, seeking to obtain advantages from any other one, can apply or promote the use of economic, politic or any other kind of measures, to coerce another State, in order to make it subordinate the exercise of its sovereign rights. Each State has the inalienable right of choosing its political, economic, social and cultural system, without any kind of interference on the part of any other State”. Since 1992, the Resolution entitled “Necessity to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” has been approved by the United Nations General Assembly during 8 years in a row and with a growing majority. While reaffirming, among others, the principles of sovereign equality, no interference in the internal affairs of other States, as well as international freedom of trade and navigation, the Resolution expressed the concern of the international juridical community for the applying of measures aimed at strengthening and worsening the blockade as well as for the negative effects both on the Cuban population and on Cubans residing abroad. Deaf ears and total contempt was the answer of the US government, which, far from lifting the blockade and all the legislations that make it up, has passed new Acts, as the Torricelli and the Helms-Burton ones, whose extraterritorial regulations affected the sovereignty of other States and the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction. The 1999 vote, where 158 States backed the Resolution, is without the least doubt, a worldwide rejection and condemn to the blockade. The blockade imposed to Cuba by the US government is a brutal and genocide action, whose final purpose is the disappearance of the Cuban State and the destruction of its fundamental basis as a nation. NOTE: Excerpts taken from the book “Cuba-USA: Nationalization and Blockade” of Doctor of Legal Sciences Olga Miranda Bravo, Social Sciences Editorial, Havana, 1996.
|
||||