by Adrian Gibson

First published in The Tribune on Friday, December 15, 2006 under the byline, Young Man’s View.

Recently, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted against the United States 45-year trade embargo against our neighbor to the south, Cuba. For the 15 straight year, the UN, inclusive of the Bahamas vote, supported a resolution calling for the cessation of the economic and commercial embargo against Cuba.

For far to many years, the US has maintained a ruthless and unjust blockade against Cuba that has failed to accomplish its original goals, and has instead placed a stranglehold on the Cuban economy, and in turn, contributed to some of the economic hardships facing the Cuban people.

Subsequent to the Fidel Castro-led revolution of 1959, and the defeat of the CIA-backed assault at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, the US imposed sanctions against the Cuban regime. Since 2000, the Bush administration have strengthened sanctions against Cuba, by denying the transfer of certain sums of money to the country and by imposing undemocratic travel restrictions on traveling Americans. According to the Bush administration, recent policies enforced against the Cuban government were put in place to ensure a peaceful transition to democracy. Is it reasonable that Cuban-Americans and others violating the embargo and frequently traveling to Cuba must face fines of up to $1 million or 45 years in prison? Is that democratic?

Is it right for the US to establish a transition committee for another country in blissful anticipation of its leader’s demise? What if we in the Bahamas set up a transition committee for the US, especially after George Bush’s disastrous presidency?

Nearly 50 years have passed since the Cuban embargo was first implemented, yet there has been no regime change. Only now, due to Castro’s illnesses, does Cuba’s governmental structure appear to be transitioning from one leader to another.

On October 27, 2006, I was invited to US ambassador John Rood’s residence for an autumn reception. At the reception, the ambassador and I, along with a few aides and embassy employees, had a most vibrant and enlightening chat on Cuba.

During the discussion, I told the ambassador that the United States? embargo was ineffectual as it failed to result in the collapse of Fidel Castro’s regime and had instead had cruelly affected the Cuban people. Further, I queried why the US had not adhered to 14 previous UN resolutions condemning the embargo and asked why the US maintains a double standard as it treats Castro’s regime one way but its president holds the hands of the Saudi prince (now king) and views Communist China as its leading trading partner.

The Ambassador was very open, even conceding at one point that the embargo may not have accomplished its intended goal since Castro remains in power after 47 years, for that admission, I give him credit. However, he and his aides did maintain that the US employs different strategies for dealing with different countries, especially those that show some signs of moving forward with democratization.

To cut a long story short, we agreed to disagree on most issues with the Ambassador extending an invite for me to visit Havana as a guest of the US embassy. I fully intend to take him up on his offer.

Now that 183 countries have voted against the US embargo was the 15 straight year, how is it that the US would not heed to resolutions when it expects other countries to do so, particularly those that the US may move a resolution against? This stance is simply unjust and hypocritical!

What is the point of persisting with a condemned embargo that is destroying the very fabric of Cuban society and hurting the very people that the US claims it wants to help? I asked Ambassador Rood this question, supporting it by pointing out that medicine, food aid, etc., were all being restricted. He suggested that Cuba can attain medicine from Europe, however I queried him as to whether he thought such a stance would be fair, especially considering the costliness of these long journeys, the fact that America has state of the art medicines and medical instruments, and so on.

The blockade has denied the Cuban people access to their nearest and cheapest market for food and medicines, causing Cuba to turn to other, more distant, countries for these needs at greater expense, or to go without. The US embargo against Cuba has had a profound impact on the everyday lives of Cubans, and it violates international laws and conventions, particularly the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other countries.

Cuban foreign minister Felipe Perez Roque has estimated that the embargo has cost Cuba US$86 billion since it began. Cuban Ambassador Felix Wilson Hernandez has also asserted that Cuba has been denied access to US based international financial institutions such as the International Development Bank and the World Bank. This is utterly wrong!

Why is it acceptable for George Bush to hold the hands of Saudi Arabian dictator King Abdullah whilst tightening the embargo against Cuba under the guise of promoting democracy? Isn’t Saudi Arabia a country where women are not permitted to ride I the front seat of vehicles? Isn’t this the place where most of the oil wealth goes into the coffers of the royal family; the place where women can hardly go anywhere without a male chaperone?

Would President Bush have been holding Fidel Castro’s hand if Cuba had vast oil reserves?

As it relates to the embargo, the US must consider the effect on the Cuban populace, even the Ambassador might concede that the best way to influence Cubans would be to flood their society with US goods.

I think its fair to say that maybe the embargo goes far beyond any attempts at regime change, and instead serves more likely as an ongoing effort to secure the support of the Cuban lobby and its votes.