And rightfully so. The US isn't the world police and doesn't have the right to block entire countries just because they feel like it. Just imagine China or Russia doing the same to some random European country. The double standards speak volumes. This is not the way.
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
232 points (94.3% liked)
World News
39000 readers
2366 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well Russia is currently bombing a European country which I personally consider much worse than an embargo.
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't see how two wrongs makes a right. This is some massive whataboutism. Both an embargo on Cuba and Russia bombing other countries are horrendous activities.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The US this year has launched airstrikes in Syria, Somalia and possibly Yemen. That is not somehow better, just because they're not a European country. And even if it were better, another country doing really shitty things is not a good argument for why a separate country can do maybe-less-shitty-but-still-shitty things.
Cuba has been under full trade embargo by the US for over 60 years, after the US Bay of Pigs Invasion failure. Russia only has sanctions and embargoes by the US on some products though, despite invading a European country. How does that happen?
The Russian population in the USA isn't demanding we embargo Russia whereas it is Cuban-Americans leading that charge in FL.
Edit changed Cubans to Cuban-Americans as TheDankHold pointed out my error.
Cuban-Americans are americans. They're not citizens of Cuba. And just because a minority wants an embargo on another country doesn't mean you should just play world police. That's not your place to decide who trades with whom. If you don't wanna do trade with them, then don't.
It is actually Americans leading that charge, they’ve been here long enough to qualify as Americans first and foremost imo. And that doesn’t mean anything regardless, how do the citizens that live on the island feel about the embargo?
Thanks I edited my comment to reflect the necessary change.
Why should Cubans determine the policy of other countries? Do I get a say in how Cuba does business?
Im not asking those flippantly. What you are suggesting makes no sense given how reality functions.
relevance?
the US isn't blockading Cuba, they're just embargoing it. There's a difference.
It's not a direct blockade, but the US has in the past threatened to cut off financial aid to any country that trades with Cuba, disallows foreign subsidiaries of US companies to trade, and even threatens sanctions upon foreign companies that do any trade in or with the US that also trade in Cuba.
The UN has cited to condemn it every year for many years, with usually only the US and Israel voting against. They say it is a violation of international law and the UN charter.
It is abhorrent and unjustifiable, and has a real cost in human lives and suffering.
Well the americans here seem to think that if they call one thing legal then it must be legal, because after all they're playing world police. And then they wonder why two thirds of the world despise their government..
The USA, like any country, has the right to decide who they trade with and the right to suggest the terms under which they are willing to engage in trade. Other nations have the right to accept those terms or not.
I do not support the embargo but it is ignorant to suggest it is illegal.
This is a bad faith argument, they are doing much more than that. They force other countries to do the same through economic pressure.
The legality of it is foggy only because the US literally decides if what it does is legal or illegal. It's condemned internationally and clearly morally shitty, stop bootlicking.
load more comments
(5 replies)
It is illegal lol. An embargo is not "we don't trade with you". An embargo is "no one is allowed to trade with you and we'll turn their economies and their ships into shambles if they do".
load more comments
(1 replies)
dunno about legality, but it's not cool, and none of these embargoes succeeded at causing a regime change anywhere as far as I know
It has a real human cost too, with many people dying as they cannot get the treatment/medication they need, holding a whole country in the past due to bitterness. I wish this was reversed, for the sake of the people whose futures are pointlessly held back.
And yet Biden keeps the sanctions, and additional things Trump added like the terrorist list.
And people wonder why the left keeps saying Dems and Republicans are the same. They're a bit further apart on a small amount of domestic issues, but geopolitically? They're just as evil and determined to keep/expand American domination and exploitation across the globe to the detriment of billions in the global south.
a bit further apart on a small amount of domestic issues
I think trans people and abortions rights advocates could not disagree more.
This would be why those who say "both sides are the same" are derided. You can make a very apt criticism of Democrats for continuing these policies when they have the ability to end them, while not minimizing LGBT rights and abortion rights.
You aren't going to win until you build coalitions, and you aren't going to build coalitions until you learn to value issues that you don't personally care about. All you do by saying the parties are the same is that you don't care about what they differ on, and unsurprisingly, people on the left dislike those who think abortion and LGBT rights don't matter.
you're absolutely right. perfect should be the enemy of good.
you honestly believe the global south will be no worse if the world's only hegemon turns fascist?
It's unacceptable that this embargo continues, and it's even more unacceptable that the US threatens countries for not respecting it. This is an old carryover from the cold war, and we'd be better off ending the embargo entirely. If that's not politically feasible in the US, then at the very least remove any threats against countries which do trade with Cuba.
It's hard to not draw comparisons to sanctions on Russia, but they're completely different situations. Russia is actively invading another country this moment. That geopolitical issue is ongoing. The geopolitical issue with Cuba is not.
Yeah. No. Like, I'm not a fan of the embargo, I don't see any purpose to it.
That being said, it is patently idiotic to say that it's illegal for the US to not want to trade with Cuba. Brazil can trade with whoever they want and embargo whoever they want. Same with the US. It's called national sovereignty. If the US was interdicting shipping going to Cuba, or blocking air traffic, or whatever, then he might have a point, but that's not happening.
US trade policy with Cuba might be unproductive and ill advised, but it is dishonest to say that it is an illegal policy. It's never illegal to not trade with a certain country. Cuba doesn't have a right under international law to sell their exports to American consumers.
I don't think you understand the extent of this "embargo". It goes far beyond simply not trading with them.
It's not a direct blockade, but the US has in the past threatened to cut off financial aid to any country that trades with Cuba, disallows foreign subsidiaries of US companies to trade, and even threatens sanctions upon foreign companies that do any trade in or with the US that also trade in Cuba. They've also begun attempting to strangle their tourism, by disqualifying any person who visits the island from ESTA - which lets citizens from countries like those in the EU visit the US visa-free. This makes travel extremely difficult, requiring a costly and time consuming visa application which could be denied.
The UN has voted to condemn it every year for many years, with usually only the US and Israel voting against. They say it is a violation of international law and the UN charter. (https://www.un.org/en/ga/62/plenary/cuba/bkg.shtml)
It is abhorrent and unjustifiable, and has a real cost in human lives and suffering.
As someone who just lost their ESTA, this whole thing is bullshit.
I’m a citizen of an European country, left Cuba when I was a minor and have zero interest in going to Cuba.
Yet I can’t go see my daughter in the USA without a visa.
Literally last week I was at the US Embassy requesting the visa, they gave me a 10 year pass (thank fuck).
But my whole family has to go through the same process. It’s all bullshit. I had to wait in line for two hours, in a city that’s far away from where I live, just to get the visa.
Edit: not to mention that this whole process takes hundreds of euros, around 150€ just for filling their online form, then add travel and accommodation expenses.
load more comments
(7 replies)
How does this embargo work? Is it that the US is not trading with Cuba or are they blocking other countries from trading with Cuba as well?
They are blocking others from trading based on threats to cease or reduce trading with the other nation. That isn't illegal at all.
Note I do not support the embargo as it is pointlessly cruel at this point.
The UN has stated it is against international law and the UN charter, and votes to condemn it every year. Usually only the US and Israel vote against it.
No they do not declare it to be illegal and in fact outright state that the UN is not interfering in affairs between states.
Try reading your own sources without a bias for what it contains as they make it very clear. There are no laws requiring member nations to trade with one another.
???
Concerned at the continued promulgation and application by Member States of laws and regulations, such as that promulgated on 12 March 1996 known as the “Helms-Burton Act”, the extraterritorial effects of which affect the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation,
Taking note of declarations and resolutions of different intergovernmental forums, bodies and Governments that express the rejection by the international community and public opinion of the promulgation and application of measures of the kind referred to above,
...
Reiterates its call upon all States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures of the kind referred to in the preamble to the present resolution, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law, which, inter alia, reaffirm the freedom of trade and navigation;
To reiterate: in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law
I'm not aware of any way to read that that doesn't involve concluding that the US' actions are outside the law.
In any case I am not interested in further arguing the point. The action is nearly universally condemned and abhorrent - the international "legality" is really not an important point whatsoever and changes little since the UN has little or no power over the US.
Try actually going to the report in question for your first link as your summary misses important parts:
"1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 60/12;1 2. Reiterates its call upon all States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures of the kind referred to in the preamble to the present resolution, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law, which, inter alia, reaffirm the freedom of trade and navigation; 3. Once again urges States that have and continue to apply such laws and measures to take the necessary steps to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible in accordance with their legal regime; 4. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations system, to prepare a report on the implementation of the present resolution in the light of the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law and to submit it to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session; 5. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-second session the item entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba"
You'll note they do not declare the embargo anything but suggest/request that the secretary general do things because the preparers believe these acts violate laws.
In addition "Reaffirming, among other principles, the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention and non-interference in their internal affairs and freedom of international trade and navigation, which are also enshrined in many international legal instruments", means that they recognize the right of the US to not trade with Cuba.
You misunderstood your reports because you did not click through to the full version. The summary you linked to in your first link has the full report.
Your second link is again a request representing opinions. It is not a declaration by the UN that the embargo is illegal.
If every state except two in a supposedly democratic body made and controlled entirely by said states is of the opinion that something is illegal according to that body's own laws, and have voted upon such language every year consecutively and similarly unanimously for decades.... then is it not? And if not, does it matter?
Again though the UN could enthusiastically support it and it would still be every bit inexcusable. There is no further value to discussing whether it is "legal" or not.
Your initial claim that I responded to was that the UN declared it was illegal. I am correcting your misunderstanding on that regard because despite your claims they never have declared it illegal.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
BRASILIA, Sept 16 (Reuters) - On his first trip to Cuba during his third term in office, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called the embargo imposed by the United States on the island "illegal" and denounced the island's inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
And to this day it is the victim of an illegal economic embargo," Lula said in a speech opening the G77 Summit of developing nations in the capital, Havana.
The comments were made just hours before Lula left for New York, where he will attend the United Nations General Assembly and have bilateral talks with Biden.
The Biden administration has previously said U.S. law includes exemptions and authorizations for exports of food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods to the island.
During the Assembly, Brazil is expected to return to its historic position of condemning the embargo on Cuba, one of the motions that is usually voted on every year at the United Nations and passes overwhelmingly.
Lula also used his speech to call once again for the investment promised by developed countries to reduce the impact of climate change, as established in the Paris Agreement, but which has not been fulfilled.
The original article contains 412 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›