Beyonce and Jay-Z will not be punished for visiting Cuba

Beyoncé and Jay-Z with Danza Contemporanea de Cuba. Photo:

HAVANA TIMES — Beyonce and Jay-Z did not violate US sanctions against Cuba by traveling to the island last year, according to a report by the Office of the Inspector General of the US Treasury Department, dated Wednesday, reported-Reuters.

“We found no indication that American sanctions were violated, and we conclude that (…) the decision not to pursue a formal investigation was reasonable,” said the review.

Two Cuban-American Congress people, supporters of a hard-line stance against Cuba, had requested information from the Treasury Department on the type of license the couple obtained for the trip.

Beyonce and Jay-Z celebrated their fifth wedding anniversary in Havana, where they visited Cuban artists.

The famous couple in the American music industry is part of a group of US performers who have visited the island in recent years, including actors Bill Murray, Sean Penn and James Caan.

40 thoughts on “Beyonce and Jay-Z will not be punished for visiting Cuba

  • Dear Carlyle and other readers. There was an automatic update of Disqus and there appears to be problems. I hope we can get it worked out as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience.


    The new system being used by Havana Times is juxta-positioning the various comments and responses or even ommitting some. This makes contributions almost irrelevant – which in turn means that contributors will cease making them!

  • If the German speakers in Sudetenland were under aerial bombardment and attacked militarily then any German leader would be bound to offer support. The French would do the same in Quebec. But you know perfectly well that Hitler used that issue as an excuse to invade the whole of Czechoslovakia. There is no comparison.
    I’d like to meet the person who decides who is a sovereign nation and who isn’t. This is a really 19th century concept. Is it any better what Saddam did in Kurdistan just because it was part of the Iraqi sovereign state.
    Putin may not like the encroachment of the EU but he is not the initiator of anything. The west is just using that as an excuse. The real issue is the break up of the country between the Ukrainian west and the Russian east. This has been brewing for years, but has been heightened by the government in Kiev and its neo-Nazi friends. Divorce is messy and painful, but it happens and you can’t keep people in a state against their will.

  • So, as you consider Putin is bound to help Russian speakers in Ukraine you no doubt consider that similarly Adolf Hitler was bound to similarly assist German speakers in Czechoslovakia and the Sudetanland. Whereas I agree wih you regarding Putin’s action in Chechnya, there is an obvious difference in that Checnya was part of Russia until 1991. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. You endeavor to justify Putin’s aggression in Ukraine by saying of him in mitigation that: “He hasn’t encouraged them to grab the Ukrainian west of the country” eg; “the country” being Ukraine.
    I comprehend Putin’s paranoia regarding Ukraine deciding that it wants to be a member of the free Europe. The history of Russia under almost all its leaders has been of expansion whenever possible and of paranoia regarding its neighbours. I give credit to the KGB for their conclusion about then Colonel Putin. I repeat: They got it right!
    I would rather see the Russian Bear caged than see it let loose again to savage its neighbours. Putin as the initiator should rightly suffer the consequences of his actions. We are told that 80% of the Russian people support his actions, as you sow, so shall you reap..
    The Cubans are not eligible “to be plunged into poverty” they are already there.

  • Talk about jumping out of a plane without a parachute. From wikipedia –

    “In late 1991, Yeltsin turned to the advice of Western economists, and Western institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury Department, who had developed a standard policy recipe for transition economies in the late 1980s. This policy recipe came to be known as the “Washington Consensus” or “shock therapy”, a combination of measures intended to liberalize prices and stabilize the state’s budget. Such measures had been attempted in Poland, and advocates of “shock therapy” thought that the same could be done in Russia.

    At the same time, Yeltsin followed a policy of ‘macroeconomic stabilization,’ a harsh austerity regime designed to control inflation. Under Yeltsin’s stabilization program, interest rates were raised to extremely high levels to tighten money and restrict credit. To bring state spending and revenues into balance, Yeltsin raised new taxes heavily, cut back sharply on government subsidies to industry and construction, and made steep cuts to state welfare spending.

    In early 1992, prices skyrocketed throughout Russia, and a deep credit crunch shut down many industries and brought about a protracted depression. The reforms devastated the living standards of much of the population, especially the groups dependent on Soviet-era state subsidies and welfare entitlement programs.[26] Through the 1990s, Russia’s GDP fell by 50 percent, vast sectors of the economy were wiped out, inequality and unemployment grew dramatically, while incomes fell. Hyperinflation, caused by the Central Bank of Russia’s loose monetary policy, wiped out a lot of personal savings, and tens of millions of Russians were plunged into poverty.[27][28]

    Some economists argue that in the 1990s Russia suffered an economic downturn more severe than the United States or Germany had undergone six decades earlier in the Great Depression.[26] Russian commentators and even some Western economists, such as Marshall Goldman, widely blamed Yeltsin’s Western-backed economic program for the country’s disastrous economic performance in the 1990s.”

    So is this what you want for Cuba?

    Why the sarcasm? Anyone who has read my posts on this site should know that I believe strongly in self-determination and I apply the principle across the board not just when it suits.

    Your logic regarding Putin is also faulty. Though he technically anexed Chrimea this is academic since the vast majority of the population wanted to join with Russia and with Doniesk he is bound to help the Russian speakers in the east of the country, who are being coerced and killed by the Kiev government. He hasn’t encouraged them to grab the Ukranian west of the country only helped them in self-defence and has called for a political solution to the problem. The best solution would probably be for the east to have autonomy within the current borders, but they also have a right to independence or to merge with Russia. Self-determination.

    What I find strange is that right wingers like yourself can’t see the difference between the situation here and what happened in Chechnya. There Putin raised a whole city to the ground killing thousands yet noone cared because Putin was in the west’s good books at the time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *