The erratic blockade against Cuba

By
Manuel E. Yepe                                                                 Read Spanish Version

"For
almost half a century, the United States has imposed a trade embargo
against Cuba. And yet it sometimes seems barely visible," says
an article published Aug. 14, 2008, in the printed edition of the
British weekly The Economist.

The
article mentions the fact that U.S. commercial brands can be found
everywhere on the island, and that, by taking advantage of an
exemption introduced in 2000, U.S. farmers have become the greatest
foreign suppliers of agricultural products, with annual sales of $600
million.

"No
wonder that some Cubans wonder whether the ‘blockade’ which the
government blames for nearly all of Cuba’s problems might be some
sort of trick," the article says, quoting a Cuban student of
medicine who asks himself if the blockade really exists.

Nevertheless,
the article later clarifies that many of the foreign companies that
trade with Cuba have recently been threateningly reminded that the
blockade does exist. It cites cases of several companies whom the
OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) has fined severely through
their subsidiaries in North America. It also recalls the prohibition
to enter the United States imposed on executives of the Canadian firm
Sherritt and their relatives, because the company deals with Cuba’s
nickel-mining industry.

The
article also explains that the draconian Title 3 of the Helms-Burton
Law (ironically named Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act)
empowers Americans who owned property in Cuba before the revolution
to sue any foreigners who now invest there. The application of Title
3 has been postponed many times by Washington because of its
potential negative effects on relations with allied countries.

The
blockade’s coercion on those who do business in Cuba became more
severe after Sept. 11, 2001, when Cuba was placed on the list of
states that sponsor terrorism — along with Iran, North Korea, Syria
and Sudan — without Washington ever presenting plausible evidence of
such an accusation. Whatever they might think of the blockade,
bankers around the world do not want to run afoul of antiterrorism
laws, The Economist says.

The
article recalls that, in 2004, the Swiss bank UBS paid a $100 million
fine; in 2007, the Dutch bank ING — which had opened an office in
Cuba — had to shut it down abruptly; and in 2008, the executives of
the British company that has the exclusive rights of importation of
Cuban cigars received a letter from Lloyds TSB, their longtime bank,
suggesting that they take their business elsewhere.

Despite
the blockade’s restrictions, many international companies continue to
operate in Cuba, says The Economist, which concludes by quoting the
director of a European firm with large investments on the island: the
best strategy is to “try to stay under the radar and make damned
sure you are here when the United States’ government finally sees
sense.”

It
is true that Cuba acquired $600 million in food in the United States
in 2007, by virtue of an exemption approved by Congress in 2000. The
crack in the blockade opened as a result of the damage caused in Cuba
by Hurricane Michelle in 1999.

But
these operations contemplate payment in cash and other exigencies,
including the impossibility of utilizing Cuban means of
transportation or compensating the purchases with Cuban exports, so
they don’t represent a violation of the blockade.

The
practice remained in effect more through pressure from U.S. farmers
(pressures that Washington has been unable to resist), which Cuba
accepts in a show of respect and friendship to the American people,
than through economic convenience by virtue of the shorter distances
in the transportation of products.

For
almost half a century, Cuba’s trade with other nations has been
submitted to a system of pressures that force Cuba to sell its
products cheaper and buy foreign products at higher prices. Cuba is
asked to assume the risk run by its suppliers to suffer sanctions in
their economic relations with the United States for violating the
"embargo."

The
blockade is something much more cruel, inhumane and genocidal. It is
part of the promotion of terrorist subversion and the threats of
aggression that obligate Cuba to spend more money in defense; the
prohibition of travel by U.S. citizens to the island; the curbs on
travel and remittances from Cuban émigrés in the United
States; the promotion of illegal emigration and "brain theft."
All that is done in the framework of an overwhelming campaign of
media slander and an unscrupulous crusade (not limited to the
diplomatic circles) to try to isolate Cuba worldwide.

It
is difficult to understand where the article’s author could find one
person in Cuba who could cast doubt on the omnipresence of the
blockade in every minute of the daily life of an ordinary Cuban.

Manuel
E. Yepe Menéndez is a lawyer, economist and journalist. He is
a professor at the Higher Institute of International Relations in
Havana. He was Cuba’s ambassador to Romania, general director of the
Prensa Latina agency; vice president of the Cuban Institute of Radio
and Television; founder and national director of the Technological
Information System (TIPS) of the United Nations Program for
Development in Cuba, and secretary of the Cuban Movement for the
Peace and Sovereignty of the Peoples.