Slight easing in Cuban blockade
By Dara MacNeil
Perhaps in some distant, parallel universe it might
make sense. The United States announces a minimal
``relaxation'' of the 38 year-old blockade of Cuba and
then expects fulsome praise in return.
In truth the `relaxation' of the blockade announced by
President Clinton was minimal in the extreme. Direct
charter flights between the US and Cuba (suspended in
1996) are to be re-introduced.
In other words, the United States is finally allowing
its citizens the basic right to freedom of travel, as
laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
However, the flights may only serve certain purposes as
outlined by the White House: so called humanitarian aid
and family reunions. Thus, the US still insists on
prescribing the right of its citizens to freedom of
movement.
In addition, the amount of money Cubans in the US can
remit to Cuba each year is to be increased to $1200 per
annum.
Yet, remarkably it is the US - large corporations and
administrations alike - that is most strident in its
advocacy of freedom of movement for capital.
Countries who attempt to place restrictions on the
movement of capital around the globe are routinely
condemned as ``protectionist.'' But of course, that's a
completely different issue.
Lastly, the Clinton White House announced the
``streamlining'' of procedures under which food and
medicine can be exported to Cuba. At present, the US
operates a strict licensing system for all such
exports.
In fact, a 1997 report from the American Association of
World Health described the licensing system as so
severe and deliberately complex that it amounted to a
complete, de facto ban on sales of food and medicine.
That ban applies to no other country in the world - not
even Iraq - and is in compete violation of every single
existing human rights accord. It is also in clear
contravention of international law.
In effect, the sum total of the changes amount to a
declaration by the US that it is willing to amend
(slightly) its criminal behaviour, but not to change it
completely. Repentance for 38 years of effective
international terrorism and the flouting of
international law is not on the cards.
d this was confirmed, not by critics of the Clinton
administration, but by the administration itself. In
announcing the changes, White House spokesman Mike
McCurry was adamant that basic US policy towards Cuba
``remains unchanged.''
Madeleine Albright - who is given to joking publicly at
the civilian deaths caused by UN sanctions on Iraq -
was even more explicit.
The US Secretary of State insisted that the new
measures did not ``reflect a change in the United States
policy towards Cuba.''
She was also quick to deny that the measures
represented a possible first step in the normalisation
of relations between Washington and Havana: ``On the
contrary, we are establishing relations with
institutions alien to the Cuban government.''
That, by any measure, was a remarkable admission. That
it could have been made in the form of a proud boast
merely illustrates the degree to which imperial
arrogance informs and shapes US policy towards Cuba.
Translated into plain language, Albright's proud boast
reads thus: Washington reserves for itself the right to
subvert, undermine and possibly destroy the government
of any independent, sovereign nation which it dislikes.
Imagine the fury and indignation if a foreign
government announced that henceforth it would send aid
and support to groups and ``institutions alien to the US
government.''
The US would treat such a statement as it was - a
threat to their sovereignty and independence, an
implicit declaration of war.
Which is exactly what Madeleine Albright's statement
amounted to, with the crucial difference that it was
merely the restatement of a policy now 38 years old.
The US is at war with Cuba in everything but name. And
Madeleine Albright, deprived of her chance to start a
war with Iraq, is determined that policy will continue.
However, in a number of crucial respects, the US moves
represent a significant step forward. Quite clearly,
they show that the US is sensitive to international
pressure.
The official US line - that the changes were introduced
as a special favour to the Pope, following his recent
visit to Cuba, is patent nonsense.
The Pope's condemnation of the US blockade was simply a
manifestation of the pressure the US has been feeling
in recent years. The Pope's visit was used as an excuse
to relieve some of that pressure, without changing
basic US policy, and without being seen to be backing
down. Imperial arrogance does not allow for an
admission of defeat or failure, no matter how small.
Thus, throughout Latin America countries that had
severed diplomatic relations with Cuba - under US
pressure - are now restoring those relations.
The latest to do so is Guatemala which, while under
complete military rule, rebuffed any contact with its
near neighbour.
Guatemala today is a country in transition. Peace
accords with the insurgent movement have led to the
re-emergence of civil society.
Simultaneously, the country has become less and less
dependent on the US. As a result, the US has lost a
significant degree of power and influence in the
region. Its policy towards Cuba has been rejected by
virtually every country in Latin America. The US is now
increasingly isolated.
The same process has been reproduced at international
level. Since 1992, the United Nations General Assembly
- comprising all the nations of the world - has voted
every year to condemn the US embargo. Each year, the
majority vote against the US grows larger. Last year,
the vote was 143 to three. There could be no more
graphic illustration of the US's present isolation.
d, of course, the attempt to extend the blockade
through the introduction of the Helms-Burton law has
brought the US into serious conflict with the European
Union.
Lastly, opposition has been growing within the US also.
Most telling is the example of (retired) General John
Sheehan. The former supreme commander of NATO, Sheehan
also once commanded the Guantanamo Bay base, the US
military base on Cuba.
General Sheehan has publicly voiced his opposition to
the blockade and rubbished suggestions that Cuba
represents a security threat to the US. His comments
caused some uncomfortable moments in the White House.
In truth, this may well be the beginning of the end for
the US blockade. But when - not if - that comes about,
the US will not be deserving of any congratulations or
praise.
Praise and congratulations should go first and foremost
to the Cuban people. Secondly, to all those around the
globe who have supported their struggle.
As far as the US is concerned, praise should only be
forthcoming when they renounce criminal behaviour for
good. An apology wouldn't go amiss either.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)