United Nations: The World Voted In Support Of Cuba’s 50 Years Embargo Lift
Sierra Leone today Wednesday 28th October 2009 counted among other Member States who voted by a landslide majority, on Item 19 on the “ Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” (resolution A/64/L.4).
The showers of blessings pouring from the clouds outside were replicated in the halls of the 64th session of the General Assembly in the United Nations Headquarters in New York for the twelve million people of Cuba as the nations of the world took turns in advocating on her behalf, to lift the embargo imposed on 6th April 1960.It is the “longest and cruelest embargo” that has ever been imposed unilaterally by one nation against another with extra-territorial effect and implications , some of the advocates said in an intervention.
A total of 187 nations voted in favour of a repeal while the nations of Israel and Palau joined the United States to vote against the lifting of the embargo, described by a few States, including Cuba, as an act of “genocide.” The Marshall Islands and Micronesia (FS) were the only two states that failed to take a decisive position; they abstained.
A resounding applause succeeded the outcome of the result of the vote prior to which, roughly 20 States and organizations like the G 77 and China, CARICOM, the EU, and Nicaragua, Brazil, Egypt, India and South Africa to name but a few had vehemently condemned the 50 year old embargo. The States argued that the embargo is a “continued violation of international law” and the sanctions ultimately fail to meet their desired goal. It “threatens” the freedom of Trade and Investment, deepens the impact of the Global Economic Crisis on Cuba thereby aggravating the hardship for her peoples, who, incidentally are the ones that
bear the brunt of the embargo especially the vulnerable groups as women and children. It also affects the rights of US citizens (over 70% were in favour of lifting the embargo a survey was quoted as finding).
They also argued that the embargo did not adhere to the principles of mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, while “frustrating the efforts” of the country (with 70% of her present day peoples being born under the embargo) in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The economy of the Cuban nation, whose embargo has endured the power of eight US presidents since it was imposed, has lost over $100 million in trade opportunities.
Notwithstanding the embargo the States argued, Cuba has stood tall catering to the welfare of her peoples and making vital contributions in the areas of health, education, sports, technology, expertise and offering her friendship to other developing countries. They said that in the absence of an embargo, the socialist country could do even more. They challenged Nobel Peace Laureate President Obama that if he really deserves the Nobel Prize, he should demonstrate his resolve for peace and equality among nations in ending this 50-year-old“blockade”.In her argument to continue enforcing the embargo, the US Ambassador and Permanent Representative Dr. Susan Rice said the use of the word “genocide” in describing the impact of the embargo was a “misuse” and ultimately undermines the suffering of people of actual genocides. She said the US government was committed to renewing negotiations and called on Cuba to release prisoners of conscience. She furthered her country’s defense by referring to the allowed remittances and family reunions as glaring examples of her country’s commitment to cushioning the impact and describing the export of agricultural and health products to Cuba as humanitarian effort. She mooted on her government’s readiness for further dialogue.
The Foreign Minister of Cuba H.E Mr. Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, touched the right cord that contributed to the resounding victory, and increased votes from 182 (last year) to 187 by describing gloomy situations whereby children needing surgery had been denied access to high quality medical facilities because of the US’ enforcement of a unilateral embargo.
Comments