Yesterday, towards the end of report 623, I included an image showing the voting result of an annual resolution that Cuba presents at the United Nations General Assembly to denounce, at least symbolically, the US sanctions policy established in a scattered manner by the Eisenhower administration, and integrated and expanded in June 1963 into the Cuban Assets Control Regulations during Kennedy's, which remain in place today. Every year, until yesterday, Cuba obtained an overwhelming diplomatic victory. Just exactly one year ago, the Island obtained the support of 187 nations, with Israel and the United States as the only countries against it—a historical dynamic—and the abstention of Moldova—Washington has always managed to influence fewer than five countries to abstain, for example the Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia, Moldova itself, Colombia during Iván Duque's time, or Brazil during Bolsonaro's.
What changed in just one year? The aggressive international projection of the second Trump administration, which appeals to the immeasurable US power to compel and subdue, reward or punish. There is no doubt that Washington advanced a comprehensive campaign to get five countries to join itself and Israel among those voting against the resolution this time, plus adding twelve abstentions. Javier Milei's pro-American vote was a given. The last year, in a rather theatrical outburst, the head of the Pink House fired his then-chancellor Diana Mondino for voting with Cuba—"violating" his unconditional alignment with the United States and Israel. But it was somewhat surprising to a certain extent that the government of Santiago Peña took such a big step as to position itself against Cuba. The statements of the Paraguayan vice chancellor are a monument to the ignorant or cynical and lying politician.
"This Paraguayan vote is against the Cuban regime and in favor of the Cuban people," said the official to the Spanish EFE. It is the first of several absurdities he said in very brief statements, because one must be very foolish to not see that the big loser regarding the U.S. sanctions targeting Cuba is not the government members—particularly those in charge of high policy—but the common Cuban. But the greatest foolishness that occurred to Víctor Verdú, the official in question, to say was that "for several years the resolution was supported to prevent the blockade of Cuba; however, it yielded no results". "This demonstrates that the problem is not the blockade, but the oppressive and dictatorial regime that for years has deprived Cubans of the most elementary individual and political rights; also with its economic effects," he added.
That is, there is a total lack of logic, because Havana presents the resolution every year precisely because it is a policy that has been quite immovable for years—except for the brief thaw period of Barack Obama's second administration—. The country has never been able to test its economic idea under "normal" conditions, without the pressure of OFAC on itself and on all who intend to trade or do business with it. The Cuban model, heavily state-controlled and centralized, focused on guaranteeing universal health and education services, and broad subsidies for all, may tend towards inefficiency anyway, but, again, the United States never gave that socialist experiment any chance of victory; today, that experiment is at its most vulnerable moment.
One problem that resonated in the UNGA during yesterday's debate, and which served as a narrative for many countries that voted against—like Hungary—or abstained—like Poland—was the presence of Cuban citizens in the Russian Army taking part in its war against Ukraine, demanding in this regard that the Cuban government be more proactive in avoiding this dynamic, which the Nariño´s House also faces due to the participation of Colombian citizens, generally ex-military, in the Sudanese conflict. We can discuss this with more time on another day, but the main point here is that one cannot mix apples and oranges in political debate, but we are in the Trump-shaked era. What was being discussed yesterday is whether the US economic siege policy should cease or not, whether it constitutes a serious problem for Cuba's socioeconomic development or not, not to mention whether it constitutes the main obstacle or not.
The team of the ambassador from Florida—more than from the United States—to the United Nations Mike Waltz promoted quite erroneous and nonsensical narratives to base its position on the issue, starting by defending that the policy itself does not exist. The argument is that Cuba can trade with the rest of the countries, but for anyone who knows how the world economy works, and particularly the financial system, they will understand that if banking institutions under US jurisdiction reject every transaction related to Cuba, even the U-turn transactions that Obama licensed at some point, it will be very difficult for anyone to enter into agreements with the Island; the deterrent effect is very large, without taking into account the practical limitations.
Consider the designation by the Treasury Department of the Cuban companies that import fuel, which threatens any actor who intends to engage with Cuba in that sector. "OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of blocked persons," alerts the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which has had the sincerity to recognize something that Waltz and all past US ambassadors to the UN have conveniently hidden, and that is precisely that the Cuban sanctions program "is the most comprehensive ... administered by OFAC".
This is what Waltz also said, appealing to that propaganda that inflames public conversation without any data to support it: "The facts are that [Cuba] supports terrorist organizations around the globe". "It is allowing mercenaries to fight in the war in Ukraine. It is propping up the Venezuelan regime, and aids cartels. The facts are these cartels that it props up are trafficking people, drugs, and weapons, and is aiding and abetting instability in our hemisphere," he added.
Finally, there are few things that explain better how different the relationship and treatment from Washington towards Cuba is than the absence of the Island among the nations that yesterday, initially, Rubio listed as potential immediate recipients of US support after the passage of Hurricane Melissa, although this Thursday the head of Foggy Bottom did announce that Cuba could receive US aid, but with a different semantics that presupposes the Cuban government is not considered a valid intermediary. "Following public communications today about the hurricane damages, we have contacted the Department of State (of the U.S.) and are awaiting details on how and in what manner they are willing to help," said the Cuban Vice Minister of Foreign Relations, Carlos Fernández de Cossío, in statements cited by EFE.
The WFP estimates that 700,000 people are in urgent need of aid after the passage of Melissa, one of the most dangerous hurricanes to hit the region. In this sense, and anticipating the damages, the World Food Programme moved in advance some 615 tons of rice, grains, and oil to the Antillean nation, but has indicated that up to 30 million dollars are needed to address the aid estimated to be necessary over the next six months, mostly for basic foodstuffs at a time of profound multidimensional crisis here.
This 👇 is from my birthplace, Sagua de Tánamo in the Eastern part of Cuba. We love our river, but not in this way (source of the images).
In a practical statement about the country´s policy to fight drug trafficking, the Colombian Navy seized nearly 3 tons of cocaine on a speedboat in the Pacific bound for Central America, capturing its three or three of its crew members. The interesting part is that the sighting and alert of the narco movement came from an aircraft of the US Southern Command's Interagency Joint Task Force. "The navy manages to seize a speedboat with 2.8 tons of cocaine in the central Pacific without a single death," said Petro regarding the event, also ordering the suspension of all joint actions involving the use of "missiles and disproportionate force", in clear allusion to the deadly US military deployment in the Caribbean and Pacific.
This is all for today’s report.
