8-28-08, 3:38 pm
'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, rather than because of obvious 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 includes 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.
