8 ms·

UN Votes Overwhelmingly to Condemn US Embargo of Cuba

89 points by okasaki 4y ago

legitster 4y ago
> Rodriguez earlier told the assembly, “We do not blame the blockade for all the difficulties our country faces today.” “But those who deny its very serious impacts or fail to recognize that it is the main cause of the deprivations, scarcities and hardships suffered by Cuban families would be failing to tell the truth,” he said. Pretty ironic how lack of access to capitalism can be such an important issue to a communist state. And I would say let them have it - Cuba of today is a far lower humanitarian concern than a lot of currently unsanctioned trading partners, and far less than the China that Nixon opened up to the West. But I think people need to be realistic that families of Cuban refugees form one of the largest block of swing voters in one of the largest US swing states. It's an unlikely thing to happen until Florida becomes a (fully) polarized state.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  Capitalism is not the only economic system where countries can benefit from mutual trade.
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  > Pretty ironic how lack of access to capitalism can be such an important issue to a communist state. Lack of capitalism or lack of resources? One doesn't "import capitalism" after an embargo is lifted.
  - tick_tock_tick 4y ago
    I mean doesn't "Lack of capitalism" basically guarantee you'll have a "lack of resources". History seems to think so.
    - orthecreedence 4y ago
      Speaking of history, humanity existed for tens of thousands of years without capitalism, so no, "lack of capitalism" does not guarantee "lack of resources."
      - tick_tock_tick 4y ago
        Most of human history is defined by frequent lacks of resource.....
      - legitster 4y ago
        Well, by that logic, people lived on Cuba for thousands of years without access to American goods and services.
        orthecreedence 4y ago
        Fair enough. My point is that capitalism doesn't materialize resources, as some people believe it to. It might be better than many other methods of organization to distribute resources, but only resources that are already available.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    No, but capitalism is the sole source of international trade. So those resources only come when they engage in voluntary exchange. International trade is the most libertarian of all markets, because there is no centralized oversight, so all parties basically bring their own gun. I don't agree with GPs framing though, as I think scale is important when comparing economic systems. You wouldn't want capitalism in your house, but it's the best thing at scale.
    - orthecreedence 4y ago
      > You wouldn't want capitalism in your house, but it's the best thing at scale. Interestingly, I think it's the best thing at low to mid-scale. Once it reaches our current scale, the externalities of profit-driven production cross various thresholds that plunge us into existential crises. At-scale, we need some form of production that much more closely measures potential for externalities and allows assigning direct costs to these. Prices are incapable of doing this directly, and the promise of the liberal state to reign in externalities is more and more clearly an empty promise.
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        Externalities and profit pursuit are exactly why it functions at large scale. Those things exist in every economic system, capitalism streamlines how you direct them. > At-scale, we need some form of production that much more closely measures potential for externalities and allows assigning direct costs to these. Prices are incapable of doing this directly, and the promise of the liberal state to reign in externalities is more and more clearly an empty promise. That's the role of money and taxes. You price the externalities. The reality is, every capitalist country is perfectly capable of reigning in externalities, the just don't, because we're playing a huge game where we try to maximize our living standards without killing ourselves. If we priced CO2, living wages, and plastic cleanup into our lives, it would be a huge set back to our daily lives.
    - legitster 4y ago
      > You wouldn't want capitalism in your house, but it's the best thing at scale. Although, growing up my dad literally did a weekly auction for chores. Actually worked pretty well too, lol.
  - legitster 4y ago
    I mean, if Cuba lacks resources, then trading isn't beneficial to them anyway. What they want is access to capital. Either to international credit pools (to bring in equipment), or straight up cash infusion via US Tourism. Neither requires them to actually liberalize their economy, but they would certainly benefit from capitalism.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  > But I think people need to be realistic that families of Cuban refugees form one of the largest block of swing voters in one of the largest US swing states. It's an unlikely thing to happen It seems ironic that Florida Cubans seem to want to continue the blockade. They must know that it's hurting their relatives back in Cuba. And if it's not effective, then why keep it in place? (effective in this case meaning something that leads to meaningful regime change in Cuba - The blockade has been in place for a long time and hasn't led to a change.) It seems like a much better plan for changing Cuba would be to fully engage. Allow trade. Obama began down that path, but Trump stopped it and went back to the status quo. Obama was playing the long game (like he was with Iran) by engaging with Cuba knowing that eventually it would lead to change.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    The Cubans who ended up in Florida overwhelmingly were fleeing the Communists, because they were well off enough to paint a target on their backs. Most of them loathe the current regime.
    - UncleOxidant 4y ago
      Yes, clearly they do hate the communist regime. My point is that the blockade hurts their relatives back in Cuba. And it also hasn't been effective in eliminating the Castro regime. Time to try a different tack.
ShivShankaran 4y ago
> Biden administration continuing former President Donald Trump's opposition and refusing to return to the Obama administration’s 2016 abstention One of the most interesting news I came across recently is that when Russia invaded Crimea, Biden had plans to arm Ukraine and requested them to fight Russians. https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/30/what-will-ukraine-do-without-joe-biden-putin-war-kiev-clinton-trump/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/30/what-will-ukraine-do-wi... Obama personally intervened and refused to arm Ukraine or launch an offensive. Shows how morally different Obama and Biden are even though they are politically close.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  The Obama administration mistook nonoffensiveness for international leadership, and when surveys showed people being "generally feeling more positive towards the US", they interpreted that as a win and assumed it would translate into soft power. It didn't though. None of that "general friendliness" ended up being a lever the US could use against China, Huawei, or Putin. Biden I think is being more realistic here — the US builds soft power by being a reliable ally (when we commit) against a world full of active hostile powers. Not via nice words.
  - f6v 4y ago
    > the US builds soft power by being a reliable ally (when we commit) against a world full of active hostile powers. Still waiting for the US to provide evidence of WMD in Iraq. /s Sorry, I can’t stand hypocrisy.
    - drran 4y ago
      They were used in Syria. Look at YouTube.
      - f6v 4y ago
        You forgot the /s tag.
infamouscow 4y ago
> General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding and are unenforceable, but they reflect world opinion and the vote has given Cuba an annual stage to demonstrate the isolation of the U.S. in its decades-old efforts to isolate the Caribbean island nation. In other words, the vote was pointless. UN member nations can do whatever they want. I'd love to be wrong, but I can't think of a single instance where a UN vote did anything meaningful, ever.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  The UN has an occupational military force which shows up in your neighborhood and puts itself at risk of attack. Nation states do intervene with support for the UN troops when those forces are attacked.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  We already learned that when the US went to war with Irak while lying about WMD, against the vote of the UN. They did whatever they wanted, just because they wanted to, and nobody could do a thing. They could fake evidences doing so, get caught, kill thousands, spend trillions, and destroy a country with no bad consequences whatsoever. No blue helmet peace keepers was sent at any point to block the US soldiers path.
- erehweb 4y ago
  Arguably the one authorizing the Korean War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_82 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bombcar 4y ago
Does the US embargo of Cuba even extend to other countries at all? I know Canada and Mexico fly there, so we're obviously not sanctioning the living hell out of Cuba as we are Russia.
- neaden 4y ago
  Not really. When it started the US tried to get other countries to go along, including having military ships near by that didn't actually do anything.
- Synaesthesia 4y ago
  It affects any company which is US owned or partially US controlled, which turns out to be a huge amount of the world. I'd say the US is sanctioning the hell out of Cuba, it even extends to food and essential medicine.
- elil17 4y ago
  No, the US is not imposing secondary sanctions on Cuba (that's where we force every other country to sanction someone we want to sanction). We do impose such sanctions on other countries such as Iran.
  - nimbius 4y ago
    technically we tried to do that during the sixties but europe, canada, mexico, and a host of other countries eventually came to realize the embargo is washingtons petulant tantrum over the fact they not only couldnt overthrow castro in a decade, they also couldnt assassinate him or his character to any meaningful effect whatsoever. We nearly normalized relationships with Cuba under the Obama administration but the next president in office immediately rescinded the olive branch and our current octogenarian in chief apparently still has a warm spot for the cold war as well.
  - logifail 4y ago
    Except that since 1 March 2011 anyone who has visited Cuba is no longer entited to enter the USA on an ESTA, they need a visa: "The vast majority of UK visitors to America enter through the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation – Esta. This is the swift, cheap and easy online permit. But the US government insists that any visit to Cuba since 1 March 2011 disqualifies British holidaymakers from the Esta scheme."[0] My parents have been to Cuba, and to the USA, although their long-haul travelling days are behind them. Q: What's the point of this policy? [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cuba-visa-esta-us-holidaymaker-b2204237.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cuba-vi...
seibelj 4y ago
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Communists/socialists vote so much that it's physically tiring. Capitalists don't have a monopoly on democracy, they don't even like it.
  - scarecrowbob 4y ago
    "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them"
- EarthIsHome 4y ago
  They recently overwhelmingly voted on a new Family Code law [0], one of the most progressive laws to be passed. And if you're interested in how democracy and elections work in Cuba, here is a pretty short and very informative clip (13min) [1] explaining the Cuban democratic system. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Cuban_Family_Code_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Cuban_Family_Code_referen... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds
  - seibelj 4y ago
    Wow so I can vote against the communist party? And protest the dictatorship without getting disappeared / bullet in head?
    - dismantlethesun 4y ago
      Cuba is essentially as democratic as China, which the US doesn’t embargo. You can’t protest the government as a concept nor any specific members of the top leadership. However, within reason you can call out localized corruption and give your input to local government initiatives. Everything on the national level is beyond the scope of a normal citizens questioning.
noasaservice 4y ago
So, this amounts to "We the UN don't really approve your embargo, but we have literally no power so... we disapprove!"
- synu 4y ago
  Or, we the member countries of the general assembly. You can argue whether or not any of those countries have any power, but probably nobody is invading the US to break the embargo if that’s what you mean.
yieldcrv 4y ago
UN Suggestion
- jxramos 4y ago
  "elaborate multifaceted and complexly nuanced nothing,... it can be some of the best nothing that money can buy"
jmyeet 4y ago
Good. Even though UN resolutions are and always have been meaningless, they can still apply some pressure. Fun fact: the UN created the International Criminal Court to prosecure war crimes, something the US vehemently opposed. The US under then-president George W. Bush, argued that such a court may lead to US servicemen being charged with war crimes. Of course the US has committed war crimes [1]. So Bush passed the Hage Invasion Act [2], which authorizes the US to invade the Netherlands if any US servicemen are brought up on war crimes at the ICC in The Hague (in the Netherlands, obviously). The point is the US wouldn't do this if the UN could be completely ignored. There are several major countries that have varying degrees of harsh long-standing sanctions at the behest of the US that are completely unjustifiable: 1. Cuba. Why? If you look beyond the "communism = bad" kneejerk reaction you come to the justification that Cuba nationalized assets of US citizens. That didn't stop the US seizing Afghan citizens' assets [3]; 2. Venezuela. Why? Because Maduro started to or threatened to nationalize their oil industry. So the sanctions were really for the benefit of Chevron, Shell and Exxon. There's no principle here. The US had no problem with Chavez (who was awful). But again, "communism = bad"; 3. Russia. This one makes sense. I mean the average citizens will bear the brunt of this but Russia started an unjustifiable war in Ukraine so what else can you do? 4. Iran.Why? After the US backed a coup of Iran's democratic government to install the US-allied Shah (again, communism and the Truman Doctrine comes into this), which pretty much sowed the seeds fo the 1979 fundamentalist revolution, which has been the government since. We've decided to pick sides with Saudi Arabia. Nevermind that Saudi Arabia funded and supported the 9/11 terrorists (and the madrasses that created them) and is currently engaging in a genocide in Yemen with US weapons. Sanctions seem to have the effect of solifying support for the regime (up until recently). Obama brokered a deal to end this. Trump blew it up essentially to appease Israel (and Biden has continued that policy). 4. North Korea. Does anyone stop and think why North Korea is really under heavy sanctions? "Because they're bad" is really the crux of this. The implicit assumption here is that US is "good", somehow by definition. That belief creates all sorts of problems. Consider this: Cuba produces a lot of cane sugar. The US spends a lot of money on the corn lobby and corn (in the form of high-fructose corn syrup) is a common cane sugar substitute in the US and almost nowhere else in the developed world. It's kinda weird how so many of these sanctions can be tied back to US economic and political interests rather than any form of principle. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes [2]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/afghanistan-central-bank-switzerland.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/afghanistan-c...
Analemma_ 4y ago
- yesco 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, sounds like the Electoral College is working as intended
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Analemma_ did not comment on the intent of the electoral college, they just gave an example for why the electoral college is stupid. As an aside, for those looking to change the situation and get rid of the electoral college, you should support this legislation in your state if it has not already passed yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
    - yesco 4y ago
      I guess I don't see why it is stupid in this example? The intent is to represent everyone and not just the majority. Things are not "stupid" just because they don't go your way.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        People’s votes in a democracy already represent everyone. Gerrymandered votes along arbitrary geographic lines represents the people whose votes happen to be a majority within those arbitrary geographic lines (states). >Things are not "stupid" just because they don't go your way. Things going the majority’s way is called democracy.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > People’s votes in a democracy already represent everyone To the extent that the electoral system produces proportional representation, sure. The US system, even before considering distortions from deliberate gerrymandering, does a piss poor job of representing anywhere close to everyone.
hash872 4y ago
The US doesn't impose secondary sanctions on Cuba, and a number of European countries have been doing a brisk business with Cuba for 50+ years now. In particular Spanish countries have a number of investments there. In other words, 75% of the world economy is perfectly free to trade with Cuba and has been since before Jimmy Carter was President. I don't really agree with all of America's Cuba policy, but there's a big difference between US-only sanctions and secondary (i.e. on other country) sanctions. Also worth noting that US sanctions have a longtime exemption for American farmers to sell agricultural goods there
- graeme 4y ago
  The actual effect of the sanctions is at a level somewhat higher than the Jones act has on Puerto Rico. 1. They forbid ships from docking at Cuba and then in the US (same as puerto rico) 2. They also forbid US companies from dealing with Cuba (worse impact than Puerto Rico) I think the sanctions are far less of a big deal than detractors say: Cuba's overwhelming issues are its domestic issues. But, the sanctions aren't nothing, unless you think Jones act restrictions don't hurt Puerto Rico or that banning all US trade with Puerto Rico wouldn't hurt it.
- difosfor 4y ago
  From what I understand for some reason the US embargo also affects us in the Netherlands to the effect of blocking money transfers from Dutch to Cuban bank accounts. I think the US is bullying these banks into joining them somehow. It's f'ed up if you ask me.

89 points by okasaki 4y ago

> Rodriguez earlier told the assembly, “We do not blame the blockade for all the difficulties our country faces today.” “But those who deny its very serious impacts or fail to recognize that it is the main cause of the deprivations, scarcities and hardships suffered by Cuban families would be failing to tell the truth,” he said. Pretty ironic how lack of access to capitalism can be such an important issue to a communist state. And I would say let them have it - Cuba of today is a far lower humanitarian concern than a lot of currently unsanctioned trading partners, and far less than the China that Nixon opened up to the West. But I think people need to be realistic that families of Cuban refugees form one of the largest block of swing voters in one of the largest US swing states. It's an unlikely thing to happen until Florida becomes a (fully) polarized state.

cassianoleal 4y ago
Capitalism is not the only economic system where countries can benefit from mutual trade.
orthecreedence 4y ago
> Pretty ironic how lack of access to capitalism can be such an important issue to a communist state. Lack of capitalism or lack of resources? One doesn't "import capitalism" after an embargo is lifted.
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  I mean doesn't "Lack of capitalism" basically guarantee you'll have a "lack of resources". History seems to think so.
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    Speaking of history, humanity existed for tens of thousands of years without capitalism, so no, "lack of capitalism" does not guarantee "lack of resources."
    - tick_tock_tick 4y ago
      Most of human history is defined by frequent lacks of resource.....
    - legitster 4y ago
      Well, by that logic, people lived on Cuba for thousands of years without access to American goods and services.
      - orthecreedence 4y ago
        Fair enough. My point is that capitalism doesn't materialize resources, as some people believe it to. It might be better than many other methods of organization to distribute resources, but only resources that are already available.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  No, but capitalism is the sole source of international trade. So those resources only come when they engage in voluntary exchange. International trade is the most libertarian of all markets, because there is no centralized oversight, so all parties basically bring their own gun. I don't agree with GPs framing though, as I think scale is important when comparing economic systems. You wouldn't want capitalism in your house, but it's the best thing at scale.
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    > You wouldn't want capitalism in your house, but it's the best thing at scale. Interestingly, I think it's the best thing at low to mid-scale. Once it reaches our current scale, the externalities of profit-driven production cross various thresholds that plunge us into existential crises. At-scale, we need some form of production that much more closely measures potential for externalities and allows assigning direct costs to these. Prices are incapable of doing this directly, and the promise of the liberal state to reign in externalities is more and more clearly an empty promise.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      Externalities and profit pursuit are exactly why it functions at large scale. Those things exist in every economic system, capitalism streamlines how you direct them. > At-scale, we need some form of production that much more closely measures potential for externalities and allows assigning direct costs to these. Prices are incapable of doing this directly, and the promise of the liberal state to reign in externalities is more and more clearly an empty promise. That's the role of money and taxes. You price the externalities. The reality is, every capitalist country is perfectly capable of reigning in externalities, the just don't, because we're playing a huge game where we try to maximize our living standards without killing ourselves. If we priced CO2, living wages, and plastic cleanup into our lives, it would be a huge set back to our daily lives.
  - legitster 4y ago
    > You wouldn't want capitalism in your house, but it's the best thing at scale. Although, growing up my dad literally did a weekly auction for chores. Actually worked pretty well too, lol.
- legitster 4y ago
  I mean, if Cuba lacks resources, then trading isn't beneficial to them anyway. What they want is access to capital. Either to international credit pools (to bring in equipment), or straight up cash infusion via US Tourism. Neither requires them to actually liberalize their economy, but they would certainly benefit from capitalism.
UncleOxidant 4y ago
> But I think people need to be realistic that families of Cuban refugees form one of the largest block of swing voters in one of the largest US swing states. It's an unlikely thing to happen It seems ironic that Florida Cubans seem to want to continue the blockade. They must know that it's hurting their relatives back in Cuba. And if it's not effective, then why keep it in place? (effective in this case meaning something that leads to meaningful regime change in Cuba - The blockade has been in place for a long time and hasn't led to a change.) It seems like a much better plan for changing Cuba would be to fully engage. Allow trade. Obama began down that path, but Trump stopped it and went back to the status quo. Obama was playing the long game (like he was with Iran) by engaging with Cuba knowing that eventually it would lead to change.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  The Cubans who ended up in Florida overwhelmingly were fleeing the Communists, because they were well off enough to paint a target on their backs. Most of them loathe the current regime.
  - UncleOxidant 4y ago
    Yes, clearly they do hate the communist regime. My point is that the blockade hurts their relatives back in Cuba. And it also hasn't been effective in eliminating the Castro regime. Time to try a different tack.

ShivShankaran 4y ago

> Biden administration continuing former President Donald Trump's opposition and refusing to return to the Obama administration’s 2016 abstention One of the most interesting news I came across recently is that when Russia invaded Crimea, Biden had plans to arm Ukraine and requested them to fight Russians. https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/30/what-will-ukraine-do-without-joe-biden-putin-war-kiev-clinton-trump/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/30/what-will-ukraine-do-wi... Obama personally intervened and refused to arm Ukraine or launch an offensive. Shows how morally different Obama and Biden are even though they are politically close.

bpodgursky 4y ago
The Obama administration mistook nonoffensiveness for international leadership, and when surveys showed people being "generally feeling more positive towards the US", they interpreted that as a win and assumed it would translate into soft power. It didn't though. None of that "general friendliness" ended up being a lever the US could use against China, Huawei, or Putin. Biden I think is being more realistic here — the US builds soft power by being a reliable ally (when we commit) against a world full of active hostile powers. Not via nice words.
- f6v 4y ago
  > the US builds soft power by being a reliable ally (when we commit) against a world full of active hostile powers. Still waiting for the US to provide evidence of WMD in Iraq. /s Sorry, I can’t stand hypocrisy.
  - drran 4y ago
    They were used in Syria. Look at YouTube.
    - f6v 4y ago
      You forgot the /s tag.

infamouscow 4y ago

> General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding and are unenforceable, but they reflect world opinion and the vote has given Cuba an annual stage to demonstrate the isolation of the U.S. in its decades-old efforts to isolate the Caribbean island nation. In other words, the vote was pointless. UN member nations can do whatever they want. I'd love to be wrong, but I can't think of a single instance where a UN vote did anything meaningful, ever.

orangepurple 4y ago
The UN has an occupational military force which shows up in your neighborhood and puts itself at risk of attack. Nation states do intervene with support for the UN troops when those forces are attacked.
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
We already learned that when the US went to war with Irak while lying about WMD, against the vote of the UN. They did whatever they wanted, just because they wanted to, and nobody could do a thing. They could fake evidences doing so, get caught, kill thousands, spend trillions, and destroy a country with no bad consequences whatsoever. No blue helmet peace keepers was sent at any point to block the US soldiers path.
erehweb 4y ago
Arguably the one authorizing the Korean War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_82 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bombcar 4y ago

Does the US embargo of Cuba even extend to other countries at all? I know Canada and Mexico fly there, so we're obviously not sanctioning the living hell out of Cuba as we are Russia.

neaden 4y ago
Not really. When it started the US tried to get other countries to go along, including having military ships near by that didn't actually do anything.
Synaesthesia 4y ago
It affects any company which is US owned or partially US controlled, which turns out to be a huge amount of the world. I'd say the US is sanctioning the hell out of Cuba, it even extends to food and essential medicine.
elil17 4y ago
No, the US is not imposing secondary sanctions on Cuba (that's where we force every other country to sanction someone we want to sanction). We do impose such sanctions on other countries such as Iran.
- nimbius 4y ago
  technically we tried to do that during the sixties but europe, canada, mexico, and a host of other countries eventually came to realize the embargo is washingtons petulant tantrum over the fact they not only couldnt overthrow castro in a decade, they also couldnt assassinate him or his character to any meaningful effect whatsoever. We nearly normalized relationships with Cuba under the Obama administration but the next president in office immediately rescinded the olive branch and our current octogenarian in chief apparently still has a warm spot for the cold war as well.
- logifail 4y ago
  Except that since 1 March 2011 anyone who has visited Cuba is no longer entited to enter the USA on an ESTA, they need a visa: "The vast majority of UK visitors to America enter through the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation – Esta. This is the swift, cheap and easy online permit. But the US government insists that any visit to Cuba since 1 March 2011 disqualifies British holidaymakers from the Esta scheme."[0] My parents have been to Cuba, and to the USA, although their long-haul travelling days are behind them. Q: What's the point of this policy? [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cuba-visa-esta-us-holidaymaker-b2204237.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cuba-vi...

seibelj 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago
Communists/socialists vote so much that it's physically tiring. Capitalists don't have a monopoly on democracy, they don't even like it.
- scarecrowbob 4y ago
  "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them"
EarthIsHome 4y ago
They recently overwhelmingly voted on a new Family Code law [0], one of the most progressive laws to be passed. And if you're interested in how democracy and elections work in Cuba, here is a pretty short and very informative clip (13min) [1] explaining the Cuban democratic system. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Cuban_Family_Code_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Cuban_Family_Code_referen... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds
- seibelj 4y ago
  Wow so I can vote against the communist party? And protest the dictatorship without getting disappeared / bullet in head?
  - dismantlethesun 4y ago
    Cuba is essentially as democratic as China, which the US doesn’t embargo. You can’t protest the government as a concept nor any specific members of the top leadership. However, within reason you can call out localized corruption and give your input to local government initiatives. Everything on the national level is beyond the scope of a normal citizens questioning.

noasaservice 4y ago

So, this amounts to "We the UN don't really approve your embargo, but we have literally no power so... we disapprove!"

synu 4y ago
Or, we the member countries of the general assembly. You can argue whether or not any of those countries have any power, but probably nobody is invading the US to break the embargo if that’s what you mean.

yieldcrv 4y ago

UN Suggestion

jxramos 4y ago
"elaborate multifaceted and complexly nuanced nothing,... it can be some of the best nothing that money can buy"

jmyeet 4y ago

Good. Even though UN resolutions are and always have been meaningless, they can still apply some pressure. Fun fact: the UN created the International Criminal Court to prosecure war crimes, something the US vehemently opposed. The US under then-president George W. Bush, argued that such a court may lead to US servicemen being charged with war crimes. Of course the US has committed war crimes [1]. So Bush passed the Hage Invasion Act [2], which authorizes the US to invade the Netherlands if any US servicemen are brought up on war crimes at the ICC in The Hague (in the Netherlands, obviously). The point is the US wouldn't do this if the UN could be completely ignored. There are several major countries that have varying degrees of harsh long-standing sanctions at the behest of the US that are completely unjustifiable: 1. Cuba. Why? If you look beyond the "communism = bad" kneejerk reaction you come to the justification that Cuba nationalized assets of US citizens. That didn't stop the US seizing Afghan citizens' assets [3]; 2. Venezuela. Why? Because Maduro started to or threatened to nationalize their oil industry. So the sanctions were really for the benefit of Chevron, Shell and Exxon. There's no principle here. The US had no problem with Chavez (who was awful). But again, "communism = bad"; 3. Russia. This one makes sense. I mean the average citizens will bear the brunt of this but Russia started an unjustifiable war in Ukraine so what else can you do? 4. Iran.Why? After the US backed a coup of Iran's democratic government to install the US-allied Shah (again, communism and the Truman Doctrine comes into this), which pretty much sowed the seeds fo the 1979 fundamentalist revolution, which has been the government since. We've decided to pick sides with Saudi Arabia. Nevermind that Saudi Arabia funded and supported the 9/11 terrorists (and the madrasses that created them) and is currently engaging in a genocide in Yemen with US weapons. Sanctions seem to have the effect of solifying support for the regime (up until recently). Obama brokered a deal to end this. Trump blew it up essentially to appease Israel (and Biden has continued that policy). 4. North Korea. Does anyone stop and think why North Korea is really under heavy sanctions? "Because they're bad" is really the crux of this. The implicit assumption here is that US is "good", somehow by definition. That belief creates all sorts of problems. Consider this: Cuba produces a lot of cane sugar. The US spends a lot of money on the corn lobby and corn (in the form of high-fructose corn syrup) is a common cane sugar substitute in the US and almost nowhere else in the developed world. It's kinda weird how so many of these sanctions can be tied back to US economic and political interests rather than any form of principle. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes [2]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/afghanistan-central-bank-switzerland.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/afghanistan-c...

Analemma_ 4y ago

yesco 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean, sounds like the Electoral College is working as intended
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Analemma_ did not comment on the intent of the electoral college, they just gave an example for why the electoral college is stupid. As an aside, for those looking to change the situation and get rid of the electoral college, you should support this legislation in your state if it has not already passed yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
  - yesco 4y ago
    I guess I don't see why it is stupid in this example? The intent is to represent everyone and not just the majority. Things are not "stupid" just because they don't go your way.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      People’s votes in a democracy already represent everyone. Gerrymandered votes along arbitrary geographic lines represents the people whose votes happen to be a majority within those arbitrary geographic lines (states). >Things are not "stupid" just because they don't go your way. Things going the majority’s way is called democracy.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > People’s votes in a democracy already represent everyone To the extent that the electoral system produces proportional representation, sure. The US system, even before considering distortions from deliberate gerrymandering, does a piss poor job of representing anywhere close to everyone.

hash872 4y ago

The US doesn't impose secondary sanctions on Cuba, and a number of European countries have been doing a brisk business with Cuba for 50+ years now. In particular Spanish countries have a number of investments there. In other words, 75% of the world economy is perfectly free to trade with Cuba and has been since before Jimmy Carter was President. I don't really agree with all of America's Cuba policy, but there's a big difference between US-only sanctions and secondary (i.e. on other country) sanctions. Also worth noting that US sanctions have a longtime exemption for American farmers to sell agricultural goods there

graeme 4y ago
The actual effect of the sanctions is at a level somewhat higher than the Jones act has on Puerto Rico. 1. They forbid ships from docking at Cuba and then in the US (same as puerto rico) 2. They also forbid US companies from dealing with Cuba (worse impact than Puerto Rico) I think the sanctions are far less of a big deal than detractors say: Cuba's overwhelming issues are its domestic issues. But, the sanctions aren't nothing, unless you think Jones act restrictions don't hurt Puerto Rico or that banning all US trade with Puerto Rico wouldn't hurt it.
difosfor 4y ago
From what I understand for some reason the US embargo also affects us in the Netherlands to the effect of blocking money transfers from Dutch to Cuban bank accounts. I think the US is bullying these banks into joining them somehow. It's f'ed up if you ask me.