People's Democracy

YECHURY AT UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

US Blockade Against Cuba Illegal

Sitaram Yechury, member of parliament was invited to be a member of the Indian delegation to the 60th session of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York on November 8, 2005. On behalf of the delegation, Yechury addressed the General Assembly on Agenda Item 18: ‘Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba’.

Following is the text of his address.

WE align ourselves with the statement made by Jamaica on behalf of the Group of 77. The four decade old economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba is the subject of discussion now for the fourteenth time in succession in this august forum. The embargo dates from October 20, 1960 when the then President Eisenhower announced an embargo against Cuba under the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Export Control Act.  The embargo has been reinforced by the Cuba Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 through which the extra-territorial reach of the embargo encompasses foreign companies as well as foreign subsidiaries of US companies doing business with Cuba. 

The embargo means the imposition of economic sanctions.  These do not appear to stand the test of international law.  Jurisdiction outside national boundaries has to be based on acts that have “substantial or grave effects within the territory” of the State exercising such jurisdiction. “Trafficking” in nationalised property cannot be said to have a substantial effect on the United States or its economy and, therefore, the extra-territorial jurisdiction cannot be justified by the doctrine of grave effects.  Similarly, the embargo’s limitations on the export and import of goods contravenes multilateral trading regimes and cannot be grounded on the GATT exception clause of “essential security interests” since there is neither a state of war nor a military threat. 

Sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality. The American Association for World Health concluded that, in the case of the impact on the Cuban health system, the embargo “caused a significant rise in suffering with patients going without essential drugs and doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment.”

The embargo also continued to have an impact on food aid deliveries, and was greater in the eastern provinces, which continued to suffer the worst food insecurity, particularly given the 2004 drought. The negative impact of the embargo in the educational sector is linked to trade restrictions that prevent the purchase of needed inputs at more competitive prices.  The difficulties imposed by the embargo have been recognised by UNCTAD especially the deleterious impact on international trade, investment flow, loans, and interest payments, as well as scientific and technical co-operation.

Although the US market represents the closest, most convenient and diversified trade area and, in a normal situation, Cuba and the United States would be natural economic partners, obtaining mutual benefits from trade, the experience has been exactly the opposite. According to one estimate, the direct economic loss caused to the Cuban people on account of the blockade is greater than $82 billion though these estimates exclude indirect economic losses.  It is our understanding that a considerable part of the US private sector would like the embargo ended to take advantage of the Cuban market; according to some estimates, the potential loss to US business ranges between $1 billion to $15 billion and potential employment losses are in the range of hundred thousands. 

While we take note of the step of the 1999-2000 compromise in Congress which allowed the export of food and medicine, though excluding government or private finance and paradoxically strengthening the travel ban, as a step in the right direction, we look forward to the lifting of embargoes and sanctions against Cuba.

Embargoes impede the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected country, in particular children and women. They also hinder the full enjoyment of human rights, including the right to food, medical care and social services, among other things.  We believe that not only is the creation and strengthening of an economic environment capable of providing equal opportunities to all countries required, but the international community also needs to re-double its efforts to promote an environment free from sanctions and embargoes.

India is opposed to unilateral measures by countries that impinge on the sovereignty of another country, including attempts to extend the application of a country’s laws extraterritorially to other sovereign nations. India recalls the Final Documents adopted by the Thirteenth Summit Conference of Heads of State or government of the Movement of the Non-Aligned countries held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in February 2003, and the call at the Doha Summit of G-77 countries in June 2005 on the subject and urges the international community to adopt all necessary measures to protect the sovereign rights of all countries.

Departing from the written text, with the permission of the president, I would like to conclude by quoting the indomitable revolutionary Che Guevera who said: A better world is possible