| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: 184 nations vote against US embargo of Cuba |
 |
|
|
|
just when you thought the american goverment couldn't piss you off anymore ...
| Quote: | U.N. votes against U.S. embargo on Cuba for 16th year
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to urge the United States to lift its four-decade old embargo against Cuba in a resolution adopted for the 16th consecutive year.
The resolution entitled "necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba" was passed with 184 votes in favor, four against and one abstention.
The measure is nonbinding and has had no impact on U.S. policy in the past.
President George W. Bush last week rejected any easing of sanctions on Cuba without a full transition to democracy and said doing so would only bolster the communist government's grip on power.
In his first formal speech on Cuba since an ailing Fidel Castro handed power to his brother Raul in July 2006, Bush labeled the Castro government a "disgraced and dying order" and urged Cubans to push for democratic change.
Every year since 1992, the U.N. General Assembly has told the United States to lift the embargo against Cuba. Last year's resolution was approved by a record 183-4, with one abstention. |
so this is how 'democracy' work in americas eyes. you have a vote, 184 vote one way, 4 vote the other way - the 4 win and america continues the embargo against world opinion   
i wonder who the other 3 and the abstention were ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nico
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Probabely the usual bunch, Israel, Tuvalu, macronesia, if I haven't mis-spelled I hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Does the USA still penalise countries who trade with Cuba? Surely if a few of the bigger ones could get together and just do it anyway? They must realise that they could cause quite a lot of embarassment if they wanted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i thought those were the countrys that always voted against un resolutions against israel nico - although its probably the same bunch, keep things sweet with america before they block everything off to them
yeah they do faceless, i remember reading something a while back about cargo boats that stopped at cuba were then denied entry to america for ages afterwards
edit - this just in;
"In a virtual repeat of last year's vote, the United States, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands voted against the resolution, while Micronesia abstained." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pirtybirdy
'Native New Yorker'
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: FL USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| America is not run by the world. America is run by America. This is why the U.N. is useless. The vote in itself is stupid...LOL! Cuba is run by a dictator, and he is not very good to his people. The world can do what it wants. Trade with Cuba, whatever. In the meantime, this country will not deal with Cuba until the government changes. I think that is the right way to go. Obviously so does the people, or else it would have changed no matter what political party is in office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: 184 nations vote against US embargo of Cuba |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Castro labeled the Bush government a "disgraced and dying order" and urged Americans to push for democratic change." |
Doesn't the above sound more credible than what Bush said ?
| pirtybirdy wrote: | | Cuba is run by a dictator, and he is not very good to his people. |
Fidel seems to be very popular .. Bush ("the decider") is probably jealous that Fidel doesn't have to rig elections to remain in power, and Fidel doesn't have to rely on buddies elected to the supreme court to hand him the election he lost at the ballot box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| pirtybirdy wrote: | | I think that is the right way to go. Obviously so does the people, or else it would have changed no matter what political party is in office. |
The only reason it's a problem to successive american governments is because it shows that socialism can work. Ok, so the people don't get bullshit like Las Vegas to visit and Pop Idol to watch, but they don't exactly seem unhappy - I've got more than a few friends who have visited and come back with great stories about the people. One friend is even saving up now in order to emigrate there as he's sick of his award winning cancer-research work being sold to bidders rather than given to sufferers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| pirtybirdy wrote: | | America is not run by the world. America is run by America. This is why the U.N. is useless. The vote in itself is stupid...LOL! Cuba is run by a dictator, and he is not very good to his people. The world can do what it wants. Trade with Cuba, whatever. In the meantime, this country will not deal with Cuba until the government changes. I think that is the right way to go. Obviously so does the people, or else it would have changed no matter what political party is in office. |
if we take your logic that america feels this way towards cuba because its a 'dictatorship' - then it should surely follow that that standard is applied to all dictatorships? but when we look, we see america has no qualms with dealing with other dictators - take saudi arabia for one, the corrupt and evil familys that run things there, long time close friends of the bush family, have some of the worst human rights records going and have brutally opressed their population for decades - they're huge business partners and 'allies' of america.
america supported saddam when it suited them for decades, and have done numerous other dictators and tyrants the world over - even carrying out violent military coups against democratically elected governments and installing brutal dictators when it suits their [business] interests.
so, we can say for sure americas view of dealing with dictators is completely hypocritical, and on inspection completely false.
you say castro treats his people badly? how so? care to give some examples? why does america deal with countrys who treat their people far far worse than in cuba? again, its hypocrisy - america has and still does support some of the worse tyrants in the world - so again the reason given on inspection is false.
so we can rule this embargo out as being about dictatorship or treating the population 'not very good' as you put it.
so then we have to look at what other reasons america has to want to continue this? and we don't have to look any further than the american governments own records - they see cuba developing independently as 'the threat of a good example' - they're showing other countrys theres an alternative way of developing. this is what america hates. they want total control, and cuba being independent doesn't figure in their plans.
stop watching fox pirty 
do you think america should leave the un?
do you think america should abide by international law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpursFan1902
Pitch Queen
Joined: 24 May 2007
Location: Sunshine State
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Why does the rest of the world care if we trade with Cuba or not? I don't want the US to pull out of the UN and I don't think we are above international laws, but why should the rest of the world care if we are not getting Cuban cigars and they don't have US goods?
I don't agree with Bush (wow, there is a surprise!!). I don't think the Cuban people, overall, want democracy unless you ask the 100's of 1000's of Cuban Americans that live in South Florida alone...They might have a different answer for you. If those who are still there, assuming that they are still there because they want to be and not just because they can't get out, are happy as little clams, then fine, have at it. But we don't have to associate with them if we choose not too and since the UN vote has had no impact for the last 16 years, why do they still keep voting? "The measure is nonbinding...", that sort of says it all, doesn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I'd imagine The Rest of The World cares because the Cuban people are the ones who suffer purely as a result of their adherence to Castro and socialism and we can see that that adherence does them or their neighbours no harm at all.
I admire Cuba and I'm sure the majority of humans think the same - not least those hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of global citizens whose lives have been saved by the free medical help that the Cuban government has given them in various war and emergency zones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
heres an article that might be of interest to some,
| Quote: | The Economic Sanctions Against Cuba: the Failure of a Cruel and Irrational Policy
by Salim Lamrani
For 15 consecutive years, the general assembly of the United Nations has voted in favor of lifting the economic sanctions that seriously harm the Cuban people, especially the most vulnerable sectors. The international community is unanimous on this issue, with the majority continually increasing. In 2006, 183 countries condemned the cruel and illegal state of siege that Washington imposes on Cuba. In vain. As if deaf, the U.S. government persists in applying an inhumane, anachronistic and ineffectual policy that has been in place since July 1960. [1]
The sanctions have cost the Cuban economy more than $89,000 million since then. In 2006 Cuba lost nearly $4,000 million as a direct consequence of this brutal policy. Not only can the Caribbean island not export any product to the U.S., nor import anything, but it does not even have the authorization to establish commercial dealings with U.S. companies located in other countries, which is in flagrant violation of international law. Cuba cannot obtain credits of any kind from international financial institutions and are prohibited from using the U.S. dollar in its transactions with the rest of the world. [2]
Since going into effect, Washington’s hostile economic policy has become increasingly severe with the adoption of the Torricelli Act in 1992, the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, the first report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba in 2004 and the second edition of the report in 2006. U.S. tourists are restricted from traveling to Cuba under penalty of an exceedingly harsh punishment that could include up to 10 years in prison and $150,000 fine. In 2005 the sanctions imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against U.S. citizens who visited Cuba increased by 54%. Moreover, since 2004, Cubans residing in the U.S. have not been allowed to visit their families in Cuba for more than 14 days every 3 years and only if they obtain authorization from the Treasury Department. In 2005 the number of these trips decreased more than 50% in comparison to 2003. [3]
The economic sanctions have also had a disastrous impact on the food availability of Cubans. In fact, the U.S. strictly limits Cuba’s acquisition of foodstuffs. Between May 2006 and April 2007 U.S. measures caused losses valued at $258 million in this sector. With this lost money, Cuba could have purchased 180,000 tons of beans, 72,000 tons of soybean oil, 300.000 tons of corn and 275,000 tons of wheat. [4]
The health sector also suffers; losses are evaluated at $30 million. What is more, the Cuban Ophthalmology Institute "Ramón Pando Ferrer" could not obtain an apparatus for studying the retina that was marketed by the company Humphreys-Zeiss. The same with the medicine Visudyne distributed by the multinational Novartis. Similarly, Abbot Laboratories was blocked from selling Cuba the anesthetic Sevorane, which was destined for pediatric use. The Treasury Department also prohibited the sale of artificial hear valves for use in children who suffer cardiac arrhythmia. The education, culture, transportation, housing, industrial and agricultural sectors are also seriously affected by the economic sanctions. [5]
Democrat Barack Obama, 2008 U.S. presidential candidate, has already spoken out against the economic punishment exacted on Cuba. [6] Democratic Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who is also a candidate, followed his lead. If elected he assured that he would lift the sanctions, open a new embassy in Havana, put an end to the subversive and illegal Radio and TV Martí programs and abolish the Cuban Adjustment Act that encourages illegal immigration. "Other than the war in Iraq, no other American policy is more broadly unpopular internationally," he declared, calling it an "abject failure." [7]
The objectives of the economic sanctions – which continue to be the toppling of the Cuban government– were clearly defined by Lester D. Mallory, Deputy Under-secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs on April 6, 1960 in a memorandum to Roy R. Rubottom Jr., then Under-secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs:
"Most Cubans support Castro. There’s no effective political opposition (...) the only foreseeable means to alienate internal support is by creating disillusionment and discouragement based on lack of satisfaction and economical difficulties (…) We should immediately use any possible measure to (…) cause hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the Government." [8]
This is nothing less than a genocidal assault as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948, which stipulates in Article II that "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Points B and C respectively specify "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" and "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." [9] It couldn’t be any more clear.
The vicious economic harassment that has lasted for nearly a half century has failed in its mission. The Revolutionary government is still in power and more solidly than ever despite the temporary retirement of President Fidel Castro. The independence of Cuba is a reality that continues to obsess Washington to the point of causing it to persist in a policy so cruel and irrational. |
i read a article a while back about life saving drugs being blocked to cuba's children hospital by america ... nice policy ...
this might interest some as well, i bet it was hardly reported in america ...
| Quote: | 90% electorate turn out to vote in Cuban elections
THE President of Cuba’s National Electoral Commission (CEN), María Esther Reus, reported that yesterday’s municipal elections were conducted without major problems and with massive voter turn-out.
“We have evaluated the process as positive, given that the response of the people was as expected. Cubans cast their votes with discipline and organization,” Reus indicated, reporting that the voting had taken place without incident.
Reus, who is also the Minister of Justice, added that the CEN will continue to compile the results of the vote and announce them as some as possible.
The secretary of the CEN, Tomás Amarán, reported that as of 7:00pm GMT, 90.32% of the country’s 8,376,234 voters had exercised their right to vote.
All Cubans over 16 years of age were eligible to participate in the process, excepting those prohibited by law, to elect 15,236 representatives to 169 Municipal Assemblies of People’s Power from among 37,258 candidates.
The 37,700 polling stations were opened, administered by several thousand volunteers and guarded by students, as has been done here since the 1976 establishment of People’s Power.
After being elected on Sunday (or on the 28th in the event of a tie or if no one candidate received more than 50% of the votes), up to one half of the representatives may eventually be members of the country’s 14 Provincial Assemblies and the National Assembly.
According to the convocation announced this past July 9, elections for delegates to the Provincial Assemblies of People’s Power and deputies to the National Assembly will take place at a date yet to be announced. |
and a final word from castro himself 
| Quote: | Fidel Castro writes on elections
Our elections are the antithesis of those held in the United States, not on Sundays but on the first Tuesday of November. Being very rich or having the support of lot of money is what matters the most there. Huge amounts are later on invested in publicity, specialized in brain washing and the creation of conditioned reflexes.
With honorable exceptions, no one can hope to be appointed to an important post without being backed by millions of dollars.
Being elected President in the US requires hundreds of millions, which come from the coffers of big monopolies. Elections can be won by a candidate earning a minority of votes.
Less and less citizens are going to the ballots; there are many who would rather go to work or spend their time doing anything else. There is fraud, tricks, discrimination against ethnic minorities and even violence.
Having more than 90 per cent of all citizens voting in the elections and school children guarding the ballots is an unheard of experience; it’s hard to believe that this occurs in one of the “dark corners of this world”, a harassed and blockaded country named Cuba. That is how we exercise the vigorous muscles of our political awareness. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I hear stories on both sides. People who live in Cuba who love it and people who live in Cuba who hate it. Some would never dream of leaving while others try to get in illegally to America and other countries.
As for the trade stuff, I think it's quite stupid because you can find so much stuff here already. All this does is create a black market for some things. And you can't tell me Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and countless other politicians haven't smoked a Cuban cigar and probably don't have a few in their offices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
do you think it should be down to the cuban people or the american government to decide though skylace?
maybe the people who hate it are in the 10% who didn't participate in the elections. what was the percent who took part in the american elections? i'm not sure of here, but i don't think it was anywhere near 90%! blair got in with something like 26% of the vote?!
i've said before, but if i could speak the language, i'd be over in a shot
heres another great article; ( sorry to bombard you all! but they're only short and very informative )
| Quote: | A 50-year vendetta
Despite a near-unanimous UN vote to end the blockade of Cuba, ROB MILLER warns that the US is determined to tighten the screw.
ON TUESDAY, for the 16th consecutive year, the UN voted 184 to four for an end to the blockade of Cuba.
Only United States, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands voted against.
Within the space of seven days, George W Bush has twice shown just how out of step he is with international opinion on Cuba.
While setting out his latest plans for the island during a speech at the White House last week, invited guests including ambassadors from Latin American and European countries sitting on one side of the hall publicly showed a lack of enthusiasm during the speech. It was a marked contrast to the standing ovations which he received from the hard-line Cuban-Americans seated on the other side.
Bush's new round of initiatives intensify a policy of aggression, intervention and blockade that successive US administrations have pursued mercilessly for almost 50 years.
On October 25, Bush shockingly escalated threats against the island and called for an international "freedom fund for Cuba," made a direct appeal to the Cuban military to rise up against the Cuban government and stated that "US policy is not stability for Cuba, it is freedom."
In a phrase that has ominous echoes of the US "coalition of the willing" in the Iraq war, he appealed for a "broad international coalition" against Cuba.
He pledged to support rebellion by members of the Cuban armed forces against their government by promising that there will be "a place for you in a new Cuba." Such actions amount to a direct and dangerous intervention in the sovereign affairs of an independent nation.
But this speech solely was not solely about foreign policy. It was equally targeted at domestic interests, as Bush looks to shore up Republican Party support and funding by appealing to Florida's influential and wealthy anti-Castro Cuban exiles in advance of the 2008 presidential elections.
However, it goes much further than this. As Cuban Foreign Minister Filippe Perez Roque stated in a response, Bush's words mark "an unprecedented escalation in the anti-Cuba policy" of more blockade, more subversion and more attempts at isolation.
And Perez further highlighted how the White House language has become significantly more threatening in recent years.
"In January 2004, Bush talked of 'working toward a rapid and peaceful transition to democracy.' In May, it was 'speeding up the day that Cuba would become a free country' and, in October, 'the Cuban people should be freed.'
"Three years later, last June," Perez noted, "Bush advocated 'heavy pressure for the freedom of Cuba' and now he is saying, in this speech, 'the word in order in our future dealings with Cuba is not stability, it is freedom.'
"Cuba understands these words as an irresponsible act that reflect the level of US frustration and calls for violence to defeat the revolution."
He added: "Time is running out for Bush, but that does not make him any less dangerous."
Demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge about the country, Bush said that his words were a direct address to the Cuban people who, "at great risk," might be listening surreptitiously to his speech, only to find that his speech was made available substantially and without editing on Cuban TV and newspapers the following day so that Cubans could see for themselves just how divorced he is from their reality.
But most surreal and hypocritical moment was the US president's insistence that his country "stands by" the Cuban people. This coming from the president of a country that has pursued a policy of blockade designed solely to inflict economic damage and cause indiscriminate suffering to all Cubans for almost 50 years.
The president himself has tightened the screws of the blockade by prohibiting Cuban-Americans from travelling to the island more than once every three years and severely curtailing remittances to help families.
Another risible measure was the offer to distribute computers for internet access through religious groups in exchange for "human rights" concessions.
Despite the blockade, Cuba has managed to install more than 500,000 computers, with another 150,000 on the way and plans to assemble 120,000 every year from 2008.
Currently, 600 youth computer clubs give free access to the internet to more than two million Cubans every year.
It is the blockade that forces Cuba to use a slow, expensive satellite internet connection and the Bush administration itself which shut down an Informed-USA programme which used to provide computers for the health system.
Staggeringly, Bush also made an offer of three-year US scholarships for young Cubans - this, in a country where 730,000 youngsters are currently studying for free in 65 universities and which, in addition, has 30,000 scholarship students from 120 countries, including around 100 medical students from poor backgrounds from US itself.
Bush's speech was clearly a ham-fisted attempt to pre-empt and mitigate the annual embarrassment for the US in front of the world at the United Nations while it continues to tighten the screws of extraterritorial blockade legislation.
These laws stretch their legal tentacles around the world, forcing all industries and countries to comply with an internationally condemned policy.
In fact, the Cuban report to the UN in advance of the vote paid special attention to the pressures that are being placed on the international banking community, forcing 20 banks to sever ties with Cuba.
If we take one thing away from Bush's speech, it should be a clear reminder to friends of Cuba as to exactly what the US administration wants for the island - regime change by any means. We have been given a clear message that we need to stay vigilant and active in defence of the Cuban people.
It is not enough for Britain just to vote against the blockade once a year at the UN. We must continue to call upon the government to emphatically state that it will play no part in US efforts against Cuba and back this up with actions.
The US is already attempting to drum up international support for its new campaign against Cuba. This week, the Cuba Solidarity Campaign received documents sent out by the US embassy in London to this effect.
Why is it that British trade with Burma totals £1.2 billion, but the same figure is just £40 million with Cuba?
How is it that the Saudi Arabian head of state is visiting Britain this week, but a high-level Cuban delegation has never received an invite?
The Spanish foreign minister and 100,000 British tourists have crossed the Atlantic to Cuba this year, but our own Foreign Secretary David Miliband will not.
The British government should make it clear that engagement is a far better policy than aggression, intervention, destabilisation and conflict. It should look to ways to improve cultural, scientific and trading links.
It is crucial to show solidarity with Cuba now and to work to ensure that British politicians understand the depth of feeling about this issue.
The Brown government must urgently and publicly distance itself from Bush and his "cold war" Cuba policy. In doing so, it would earn the respect of the trade union and labour movement and, indeed, the people of Britain.
Rob Miller is director of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. For more information, visit www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | do you think it should be down to the cuban people or the american government to decide though skylace?
|
Decide what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Only United States, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands voted against. |
Palau and the Marshall Islands? It might as well have been Laurel and Hardy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
