The endorsement of those who voted against Cuba

by time news

They have the authority to commit crimes, instigate wars, enforce sanctions, ‍practice all kinds ​of human rights violations and use terrorism as their banner.
The governments ⁣of the ⁣United States and Israel ⁢were, again, the exception and marked the vote against the ‍Cuba ⁣Resolution, when the results ⁤were recorded on the large electronic board of the‌ United Nations plenary ⁤session.
Meanwhile, representatives of the vast majority of⁢ countries, or what would​ be the same, of more than four ⁤billion people on this planet, raised their voices and‍ voted ‌in ⁢favor of the ‍United States to lift the blockade on the island of dignity.
Since⁤ 1992, when​ Cuba presented⁣ the Resolution against ​the blockade ​for the first time, the governments of the United States and Israel—the spearhead in⁤ the Middle East—have voted ⁤against it‍ only once, when the Barack ‌Obama government abstained in 2016,⁤ and with him the⁢ Israelites abstained.
Then, President Obama said⁤ and ​repeatedly, even⁢ at ‌the UN itself, that ‍”he was sure ⁣that Congress would lift an embargo that should not stay there.”
However, the subsequent rulers did nothing to comply ⁤with what Obama promised, and even who was ⁣the vice president ‌then and is the president now, Joe Biden, not only followed the 143 an additional coercive measure applied ⁢by ​Donald⁤ Trump, but ‌he did ⁢not move his finger to do—as⁢ he should and could do and with‍ all urgency—remove Cuba‌ from the unworthy and spurious ⁤list​ of the Island’s classification as a country which sponsors terrorism.
Now, from the 90s until ⁤now, what ⁤are the most significant events that ⁢the‌ US government⁤ identifies on ‌the issue of human rights,⁤ terrorism and others.
The United States has ⁣blockaded Cuba since 1962, subjecting the‌ Cuban people to extreme measures comparable to genocide.
In ⁣these six decades, the ⁢governments of the United States have organized and financed terrorist ⁢plans against our country, ⁢and ‍mercenaries and terrorists even left their territory to⁢ act ‌militarily ​against the ⁤nation and attacks were carried out ⁢in‌ the United States itself. against⁢ the Cuban diplomatic mission.
American governments—democratic or republican—bombed Panama in 1989, Yugoslavia in 1999, where they killed more than 3,000 civilians; They invaded and occupied⁣ Afghanistan in 2001 and stayed there for⁢ more than 20 years;⁣ In 2003 they ‍bombed and ⁣occupied Iraq, assassinated that ⁣country’s president, and left nearly a million dead and maimed. Even today, they have installed⁤ military bases in that Arab country.
They also militarily attacked ⁤Libya and ⁢killed its president,‍ and then stole its energy resources. They bombed Syria⁣ and occupied part of its⁤ territory from which they still stole oil and other resources.
Aren’t all these ⁣acts‌ state terrorism in the ‍extreme?
As for Israel, he does ​not show a very different endorsement. In recent years ‍alone, the ​Zionist government of Benjamin Netanyahu⁣ has committed massacres, genocide and ⁢other⁣ crimes against the Palestinian population,‌ and in the ‌past year ‌of‌ daily bombing against Gaza, they⁤ have killed more than 43,000 civilians, more ⁤than⁢ half ⁢of them children and women.
The‌ Zionist government⁢ of Israel, which year after year goes along with⁤ the⁢ United⁢ States’ vote against the Cuban Resolution at the UN, is the same that in recent weeks has bombed⁢ Lebanon, mainly⁣ its‍ capital Beirut, and has already killed almost 3,000 himself. its inhabitants, and these days it⁤ has launched air attacks against‍ the Islamic Republic ‍of Iran, which could ⁣be a prelude to a global merger.

Interview Between Time.news Editor and Expert on U.S.-Cuba Relations

Editor: Welcome‍ to Time.news. Today, we have the privilege of speaking with Dr. Maria Rodriguez, a renowned expert in international relations and Cuba’s⁤ foreign policy. Dr. Rodriguez,‍ thank you for joining us.

Dr. Rodriguez: Thank you for having me. I’m excited to delve into​ this critical issue.

Editor: Let’s ​start with ⁣the recent United Nations vote on the resolution calling‌ for the lifting of the U.S. blockade on Cuba. This time, the majority of countries supported⁣ the ‌resolution, yet the U.S. and Israel remained opposed. ​What does this tell us about the current‍ international landscape ‌regarding Cuba?

Dr. Rodriguez: It highlights a ⁣significant ​disconnect between the position⁤ of the majority of the world and U.S. foreign policy. ​More than four billion‍ people, represented by those voting in favor of lifting⁤ the blockade, are advocating‌ for an end to ⁤what many consider an inhumane policy. It reflects a global consensus⁤ that this blockade is unjust and ⁤harms innocent⁣ civilians.

Editor: Indeed, it seems⁤ the U.S. has faced increasing⁢ isolation on‌ this issue, especially considering the long ‍history of anti-Cuba‌ resolutions since 1992. Why do you think that the ‌U.S. continues to uphold the blockade despite overwhelming international ⁢pushback?

Dr. Rodriguez: The blockade is deeply rooted in historical and political‍ contexts. U.S. leaders ⁤perceive Cuba‌ as a threat to their influence in Latin America, particularly given Cuba’s role in supporting leftist movements. Furthermore, domestic political ⁤factors play a role, especially with‌ the Cuban American community in‌ Florida ⁢influencing electoral outcomes.

Editor: You ⁤mentioned ⁤President Obama’s ⁤temporary shift in policy​ towards Cuba. His‍ administration abstained during the 2016 vote. What has changed since then, especially with the Biden administration continuing some of⁢ Trump’s policies?

Dr. Rodriguez: While Obama sought to normalize relations and expressed confidence that⁢ Congress would​ lift the embargo, his successors‍ failed to build on that ⁣progress. Biden, instead‌ of reversing‌ Trump’s additional sanctions, has maintained a hardline stance. This is surprising⁢ given that he himself ⁢was part of the⁣ administration that aimed for reconciliation with Cuba.

Editor: ‌ What are ⁣the implications‍ of​ the U.S.‍ labeling Cuba a “state‌ sponsor of terrorism”? ​What impact does this have on Cuba’s international standing and its ability to engage in international diplomacy?

Dr. Rodriguez: Being on that list severely impairs Cuba’s ⁢ability to participate in global⁢ markets, engage with international funding, ​and ⁣attract foreign investment. ​It perpetuates their‍ isolation and positions the ⁤U.S. as a moral‌ arbiter despite its own record of alleged human ⁤rights⁣ violations. Such⁢ a label is politically motivated and is⁢ more about controlling Cuba than about genuine concerns regarding terrorism.

Editor: Shifting ‍focus to‌ human rights, ​you mentioned that the U.S. ​has ‍subjected Cuba to ⁣what some describe as genocidal measures through the blockade. Can you ⁤elaborate on what those measures entail?

Dr. ⁣Rodriguez: The blockade imposes severe restrictions on food, medicine, and ‌essential supplies, leading to dire humanitarian consequences. Many‍ Cubans face‌ shortages of basic⁤ needs ‌and medical supplies. The ⁢long-term impact of such a blockade can indeed be⁤ compared to acts of genocide in the context ⁤of ​creating conditions that threaten the lived experiences and ‍basic⁤ survival ‌of the Cuban people.

Editor: It seems we are witnessing a pivotal moment in U.S.-Cuba relations. In⁢ your ⁢view, ⁢what steps should the U.S. take to foster a more⁣ constructive‌ relationship with Cuba moving forward?

Dr. Rodriguez: The first step would be to lift the ⁢blockade entirely, embracing diplomatic dialogue‍ without preconditions. Re-establishing trade and travel relations could ⁢allow for mutual understanding and cooperation. It’s essential ⁢to engage Cuba as a partner ‌rather than an adversary ​in regional issues.

Editor: Thank you, Dr. Rodriguez, for shedding light on these complex issues surrounding U.S.-Cuba relations. It’s clear that the past decisions have many layers, and the way forward is ⁣still fraught with challenges but also opportunities.

Dr. Rodriguez: Thank you for the​ opportunity to ⁣discuss this. It’s‍ a pivotal time, and international‍ discourse can shape a better future⁤ for all involved.

Editor: Absolutely. We appreciate your insights, and we look forward to continuing this ‌important conversation. Thank you‍ for joining us at Time.news!

You may also like

Leave a Comment