- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.
edit: result of the vote: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/system/cache/media_attachments/files/113/398/372/180/881/996/original/82c4d1f509e933fa.jpg
You must log in or register to comment.
Why is it normalized that one country can block/embargo/complicate/whatever-you-want-to-call-it another country to the point of severely affecting the lives of millions of people … for what? because one country disagrees with the politics of another country?
If countries were able to do that, there would be no trade anywhere in the world.
Yet it’s been completely normalized for the past six decades between the US and Cuba.
Palestine and plenty of other countries, too. Mostly the ones that want a different economic system, afaict.
Countries have complicated trade for centuries. Free trade is a modern exception, not the historical rule.
And in principle, countries have as much right to restrict trade with Cuba as they do with Russia and Israel. It’s the same principle that allows people to call for boycotts of Amazon and Starbucks. All of these things can affect the lives of millions, in an effort to bring about political change.
Removed by mod
The US military is in 75% of the countries on earth but it’s definitely not the largest empire the world has ever seen * wink wink *
Welcome to politics?
Why shouldn’t a country be able to decide not to trade with another country?
You are correct but the question was … why should a country prevent another country from being able to freely trade with every other country.
- This isn’t happening in Cuba.
- It’s an extension from a countries ability to decide who it trades with. Lots of secondary sanctions on companies doing business with Russia, they have to pick a side.
Every country has trade relations with everyone else. When you form pacts with other people you have to agree on terms together.
deleted by creator
It isn’t that it’s normalized. It is simply that no one can do anything about it. So, they voice their disagreement.
Because the international order is based on economic and military might, not any sort of higher ideal or codified rules.
So jungle rules then … ooga booga … just with better vocabulary.
Well… Yeah. Who do you think would enforce any “rules”? And how would they?
If only UN wasn’t completely useless to the point of not doing anything
Removed by mod
What would it do? And how would it enforce its decisions?
Simple, prevent wars. Kick leaders in the balls. Lessen human suffering and violence.
how?
The UN is, like marginally more effective than the League of Nations was. Which is to say: nearly completely meaningless.
So, UN would?
But then all the major powers woukd exit cuz this doesn’t suit them, and the UN would be useless again.
if only the UN wasn’t so useless
It’s actually a scam that it is pointless. All it does is it creates an illusion of discourse when there is none - the “big boys” will still do whatever suits them best - be it China, Russia, US.
The whole point of creating it was so that at least everyone gets to talk.
Any union that would force any sort of rules couldn’t exist. But a one with no commitments does exist, and countries talk, and sometimes things happen when it’s not in a direct conflict of major powers.
Lemmy somehow always imagines some higher international power existing and also that power somehow ruling in accordance with their beliefs. I’m not sure how they imagine that would actually work and who would enforce the order.
If that same thought or sentiment grows around the world … then why have a UN if its just treated as a play toy by the ones with the biggest guns?
ALL of international politics is ruled by those with the biggest guns! There is no mommy or daddy to make the kids play nicely.
The UN is an attempt to allow for international discussions, collaboration and some sense of “law”. It is and always will be flawed, but that doesn’t mean its useless.
Just wait until China blockades Taiwan and uses the USAs blockade of Cuba as precedent
The problem being that Taiwan is a critical part of the entire global economy. TSMC fabricates ~50% of all semiconductor products in the world, but critically >90% of all fabrication at 5nm or lower (basically everything with a fabrication process less than a decade old). They are the leading edge. If you want to make a modern CPU, TSMC is your foundry.
By threatening Taiwan, China is holding a gun to the head of the entire world. Loss of TSMC’s fabrication would basically shut down the global computer industry.
You are just giving more reasons for China to do it.
Well yes, from China’s perspective, but for the same reasons the rest of the world should be very concerned about Taiwan’s well-being.
I’d rather russia had just embargoed Ukraine, for the 2014 “revolution” instead of invading. And that China embargo Taiwan instead of invading if that ever comes to pass. Don’t you? It’s not even a siege as some people are portraying it, there are no secondary sanctions.
That said, I’d rather the embargo were lifted and relations were normalized, maybe Cuba would turn into a sort of Vietnam, but that would take more than just the US lifting restrictions, it would take reform on Cuba’s part as well. Even China agrees that Cuba needs market reforms e.g. https://www.diariolasamericas.com/america-latina/china-rompe-acuerdos-comerciales-cuba-ya-no-es-el-sugar-daddy-del-regimen-n5365604 and won’t invest in a dying economy unless they change, same as the US.
Unless the missile crisis is ongoing, or nationalization of Chiquita is recent, or Cuba was behind the JFK assassination, how the heck can we justify this?
There’s a ton of US money that would goto Cuba and benefit people in both countries.
But who cares if they do market reform? Sure that will affect their economic success but that’s on them. It’s not worth sanctions
Ah, well…
Some of those have been decommissioned. I know for sure the first one in the second column has, as I was stationed in that one.
And the bonhomme Richard basically got arsoned in port. The enterprise is definitely out of it since 2017, this graphics full of bs.
I’d love to find a more up-to-date version, if you know of one.
None I could find, spraypaint those 3 out at least >.< I’ve no idea on the other countries accuracy my bet is that graphic is pre 2017 at the least cause the enterprise was decommissioned that year.
I’m sure it’s a bit out of date.
Even so, the reality is that the US can afford to staff, deploy, and supply, multiple carrier battle groups far away from home. Nobody else can. The US Navy has a credible chance of taking on the entire rest of the world’s navies combined.
The US also has about 750 military bases (not including black sites) scattered across 80 countries around the world
This is somewhat misleading. It’s not like US can deploy a massive fleet of carriers that overwhelms most of the worlds militaries. This is so US can maintain a presence, a mobile base, in parts of the world it seems important. Full time. This is just a carrier in each ocean, even during maintenance cycles.
A big difference is most of these other countries are not trying to project power far away, just defend their turf. For example does the number of carriers China has really matter? The contention is us carriers and bases in Asia vs all of China.
Oh definitely, they can’t all be deployed at once - but the ability to rotate them out means a sustained presence that nobody else can achieve. And the point is really more about the organization structure that supports those carriers and their accompanying battle groups - the US can control any part of the ocean anywhere in the world, for as long as they want. That kind of force projection is hard to compete with.
There is more countries with CVs than i thought. Also Brazil and Thailand? I wasn’t aware they had any sizeable navy to begin with.
Yes, although having the ship is only part of it. What the diagram can’t really show is that the US also has a global logistics system which supplies the carriers and their accompanying battle groups when they deploy to other side of the planet. That system has been decades in the making, it’s not something you can just buy, it requires a crazy amount of planning and organization.
I doubt the US could deploy every carrier effectively, but it can certainly put multiple battle groups at sea simultaneously and keep them there for a long time.
There is no blockade of Cuba. It’s an embargo. There are no military ships blowing up anyone trying to trade with Cuba.
Surprised you’re not being downvoted for calling out this disinformation, usually it’s all the rage on Lemmy
If I were to start a business out of Miami, Florida that sent an oil tanker to Cuba, what would happen to that oil tanker?
The company would be prosecuted and the ship seized the next time it docked at port. If the company was based in literally any other country, nothing would happen.
Do you actually believe the ship wouldn’t be intercepted with implied violence?
Let me guess, you also believe Republicans when they say abortion will be “left up to the states” right?
It’s what has literally happened to ships that violated the Russian and Iranian sanctions in the last couple years.
Edit: incorrect removed
There are no secondary sanctions on Cuba.
My bad you are correct. I waa confused.
I’m 2024? No shot. They’d end the embargo before doing that.
Why won’t the rest of the world just ignore the blockade together?
When I was a kid, sweden did (IDK if they still do) so we had Cuba Cola there :-)
Because nuclear bombs are horrifying.
The USA is going to bomb anybody who trades with Cuba?
The USA shoots kids in schools. Do you really think we won’t bomb anyone who trades with Cuba?
In some way, I can respect that absolute devotion that leads to complete disregard of even your own children.
Maybe not bombs, America’s style is more using the CIA to destabilize elections and arm fringe militia groups to cripple other countries. It’s really cool and good that I’m forced to support that every time I go to work and pay taxes.
You know Cuba trades with Canada… France… Italy… no issues.
Need to ship goods to/from Cuba from Canada, here you go https://www.latinamericancargo.com/shipping-from-canada-to-cuba/
I can’t believe they’re still trying to “contain the communism” of Cuba
We were in Cuba one year when they had the vote. I had never heard of it, but it was all over the news there so i thought it actually meant something.
is this that kind of vote the us can always overturn for some reason?
There are two tiers of UN. There’s the “I’m not a colonizer that’s willing to nuke people” tier, where the strongest outcome is “sternly worded email”; and then there’s the UN Permanent Security Council tier where you get an absolute veto power that cannot be questioned. The wiki is a very educating read
Edit: please tell me what part I am incorrect about if you disagree so hard that you downvote me out of the discussion.
Isn’t it just the permanent members of the UNSC with veto power?
Correct, I could have been more specific.
The United Nations is a corrupt organization the majority of whose members try to improve their station by taking bribes to vote whichever way Russia, China, the Arabs or Iran pay them to. It’s been a fucking joke for decades.
All these downvotes make me wonder if people know that Saudi Arabia is the chair of the UN gender equality forum.
LOL
Removed by mod
USA is the only country with TRUE FREEDOM! /s
The purpose of the UN was to prevent World War III. That’s all.
It was never intended to be a global government, it was never intended to prevent all conflict, it was never intended to be a perfect organization.
Expecting the UN to exist without corruption, or to effectively prevent all wrongs across the world, is to severely misunderstand what the intended goal is or what any collective group of humans is even capable of.
You’re kinda glossing over the fact that it looks like it’s failing to prevent WW3.
Yes, well, at the end of WWII all of the major economic powers in the world were more interested in negotiating than fighting. Nobody wanted to go to war again, at least not for awhile.
Eight decades later, and all those lessons have been forgotten. Self-interested and shortsighted leaders have risen to the tops of many nations, and nationalistic rhetoric is gaining popularity again.
The problem isn’t really with the the UN as an organization, but with the participants who are no longer acting in good faith, and no longer see large-scale war as something to be avoided at any cost.
I wasn’t trying to say that the UN had the power to prevent WWIII, only that it was created with the intent to do so. The UN as an organization never really had any teeth of its own. It’s a forum for discussion between nations - not going to war can really only happen if the nations involved make that the priority above their own interests.
With North Korea now committing troops to the conflict in Ukraine, the current situation seems very familiar, a prelude that will eventually lead to larger economic powers being drawn into the conflict directly. It feels like we’re all on a well-trod historical path, and I don’t know how we get through it without learning those lessons the hard way, again.
I fucking hope I’m wrong.
Eight decades later, and all those lessons have been forgotten. Self-interested and shortsighted leaders have risen to the tops of many nations, and nationalistic rhetoric is gaining popularity again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory
In some ways, I’m a believer in the “80 year cycle, theory”. But to me, it’s a much simpler cause. 80 years is going to be roughly four generations removed from whatever the last chaos was (in this case, Hitler and Fascism and the Holocaust).
The generation that lived through it is long dead. They taught their children (My parents) to never forget. They in turn taught their children (Me…Gex X) to still remember what was fought for. And then the current generation (my kids if I had any) have a far less fundamental grasp on that history. We’re so far removed from that event that it’s been forgotten just long enough that it all makes an appearance again for the very same reasons. Because it’s an easy trap to fall into; blaming someone else for your problems.
All this has happened before and it will happen again. It’s as simple as “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”.
After successfully preventing it a basically unknowable number of times…
Not to say you are right or wrong, but by that logic I could tell you that santa clause has also prevented nuclear war an knowable number of times. Its a bad argument.
deleted by creator
Russia waiting to put some nukes in Cuba
If Russia wanted to do that, they could.
Don’t you think that might cause some kind of a crisis
Yes, which is why they won’t.
My point is they already tried it, the Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the closest the world has come to nuclear war
And my point is that they won’t try it again, because the Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the closest the world has come to nuclear war.
Yes, so Russia can’t do it
I wonder what it might be called
Robert Kennedy Jr is rolling in a grave right now.
Probably because of the worms in his brain…
Stop it Bobby, get out of that grave! It’s not even yours!
Legalize the import of Cuban cigars, and I will personally bring Cuba back into an age of prosperity.
I quit smoking but I’d gladly have a puff.
The thing I love about Cubans is the smell. The US is spoiled with a wonderful selection of great Nicaraguan and Dominican cigars that for all intents and purposes beat out Cubans. But Cuban cigars have a very particular smell that I can’t get over.
I’ve enjoyed really nice Dominican cigars, especially the chocolate and I forget what you can the greens but they are fabulous.
You can bring them back in your luggage - limit is maybe 100 cigars or $1000 worth. Something like that.
I’m 99% certain Trump administration put the kibosh on that. At least that was what I was told when I traveled out of country in 2023, and wanted to see if I could bring some back.
In 2016, the Obama administration eased some restrictions, allowing U.S. travelers to bring Cuban cigars into the country for personal use. However, this was short-lived. In 2020, the Trump administration re-imposed strict regulations, re-banning Cuban cigars—whether bought in Cuba or through third countries. Current Regulations:
As of now, it is illegal to import Cuban cigars into the U.S. This includes bringing cigars bought in other countries that originated from Cuba. Any attempt to bring Cuban cigars into the U.S. can result in serious legal consequences, including confiscation and potential fines.
Trump tried and failed as usual.
The People's Dispatch - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The People’s Dispatch:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - Null
Search topics on Ground.News
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/10/29/the-world-prepares-to-vote-against-the-us-blockade-on-cuba/
Being of Cuban descent, I really hope that this is the first step towards repealing that embargo once and forma all. ¡Vida y patria!
Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.
And just like every year, the vote will do nothing.
Because it’s Russia advocating to lift the embargo which was put in place because of the Cuban missle crisis right?
Since the 1960s, the United States has systematically punished the Cuban people through a stringent blockade on its economy for having declared and built a political and economic model different from the one advocated and directed by the United States.
It’s not about the economic model or the US wouldn’t be buddies with Vietnam. This is about United Fruit (now Chiquita), this is about Bacardi, all expropriated without a dime of compensation, and rightfully so for using de facto slave labour under the watchful eye of US-backed dictators, administrating the island as a de facto colony.
The Cuban revolution wasn’t socialist, it was one for independence. The guerillas, once in power, were eyeing vaguely DemSoc politics and a good relationship with the US. The US answered with the Bay of Pigs invasion etc, driving Cuba into the arms of the Soviet Union and acquiring an unhealthy habit of authoritarianism and non-industrialisation in the process, becoming dependent on the block overpaying for their sugar, them underpaying for oil, fertiliser, etc.
The difference to Vietnam? Vietnam was a French colony. The US got over the domino theory which made them wage war there, they never got over the expropriations and losing control over the colony, worst of all, driving it into the hands of their mortal enemy. To relent on the sanctions would mean reflecting on all that and I don’t think the US is politically capable of admitting such a gigantic mistake, both humanitarian and strategic, to themselves.
In a parallel universe, with saner heads in Washington prevailing, Cuba would now be negotiating alongside Puerto Rico about the details of US statehood.
The Cuban revolution wasn’t socialist, it was one for independence. The guerillas, once in power, were eyeing vaguely DemSoc politics and a good relationship with the US. The US answered with the Bay of Pigs invasion etc, driving Cuba into the arms of the Soviet Union and acquiring an unhealthy habit of authoritarianism and non-industrialisation in the process, becoming dependent on the block overpaying for their sugar, them underpaying for oil, fertiliser, etc.
This is somewhat inaccurate. The guerrillas, once in power, were a broad coalition, but the Castro brothers and Che consolidated power under a ML-leaning regime, and despite claims otherwise to some of their less ML compatriots, this seems to have been the plan more or less from the start. Several of the revolution’s leaders were executed for not being ML-leaning. The Bay of Pigs invasion occurred only after that.
This is not to say, mind you, that US hostility didn’t drive Cuba into the arms of the Soviets - it very much did. But that hostility was before the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the idea of a demsoc Cuba was dashed by the very men who freed Cuba from Batista.
despite claims otherwise to some of their less ML compatriots, this seems to have been the plan more or less from the start. Several of the revolution’s leaders were executed for not being ML-leaning.
Confirmed by William Alexander Morgan, who became disillusioned with Castro, and was then executed despite how much he’d helped the revolution.
Seems like he was executed for leading a rebellion against Castro’s forces. It wasn’t just because he wasn’t communist enough.
He was charged with planning to lead them, though I’m not sure if that was actually true or just a charge to slap on him before the execution. He did smuggle arms for the counter-revolutionaries, but only after his comrades and friends were being arrested for counter-revolutionary activities.
Removed by mod
Certain americans do not care about foreigners at all. The whole election spam proved that. We are simply not humans to them.
FTFY
it’ll add up to a hell of a lot of justified reparations when the US backs down.
US backs down
Does the US back down? We definitely double down
yeah, The US backs down.
they backed down in Vietnam, they backed down in iran, somalia, they backed down investigating the Saudi Arabian terrorists in 9/11(which is almost all of them), and the list goes on.
the US is not often gracious about backing down or wise enough to back down prudently, but they do back down.
You left out Afghanistan to be irrefutable, but…gestures at $3TRILLION bill with nothing to show for it.
Well, we successfully shifted all the wealth my generation will ever create over to ultra-rich Defense contractors.
“and the list goes on…”
I was just happy to act as a downvote lightning rod while adding to your excellent list :)
you are in company.
Blockading Cuba has never made sense. If communism is an inferior failed system that can’t compete with the freedom of Capitalism (cue heavenly sunbeams and angel choirs) why not leave Cuba alone and let nature take its course?
This is why you get conspiracy theories that it was Cuba that assassinated President Kennedy: how else can we justify such extended sanctions when all the participants are long gone
Noted socialist (/s) Hillary Clinton advocated for that very thing.
The real reason behind the embargo at this point is that it makes a small but important voting bloc of Cuban expats in Florida happy.
That figures - gotta keep those campaign financiers happy.
Yep - it’s one of the reasons Miami sees so much Trump support.
That’s really it. The start and end of why the embargo is even still there. It hurts both Cuba and (to a lesser extent) the United States. It benefits nobody, but there’s some loudmouth Cuban expats who want you to believe Batista didn’t have it coming.
There was a somewhat understandable reason initially; when the embargo was first started, it was because Cuba allowed the UUSR to use it as a forward base for missiles so they could reach the mainland US, which, understandably, the US wasn’t very happy about
But ever since the fall of the USSR it’s been absurd
Especially since we’ve kept a naval base/prison on a corner of the island the whole time, yay Murica.
Because the US knows communism is not an inferior system. But to run the argument it never works they need to embargo it to then say “see it doesnt work”.
Ahaaa!
