US Embargo on Cuba Rejected 191-2 at UN

Voting results on the resolution submitted by Cuba against the US embargo. Photo: cubadbate.cu
Voting results on the resolution submitted by Cuba against the US embargo. Photo: cubadbate.cu

HAVANA TIMES — The United States and Israel were once again the only countries to vote against a UN resolution condemning the embargo imposed for over a half century by Washington on Cuba, reports dpa news.

For the twenty-fourth consecutive year Cuba took its case against the embargo to the UN via a non-binding resolution.

With the newly re-established diplomatic relations between the two former enemies, there had been speculation that the Obama administration would abstain.

However the US voted against the resolution accompanied by Israel, while the other 191 UN member countries, a record number, were against the economic, commercial and financial embargo the United States maintains on the island.

A possible US abstention was seen as a symbolic gesture, since it is the Congress that has the power to lift the embargo. President Obama has already expressed his desire the embargo be lifted and has taken steps to relax certain aspects of it since December last year when the two countries announced they would resume relations, broken off in 1961.

The US justified its decision to oppose the resolution saying that the text of the resolution did not reflect “the significant steps that have been taken and the spirit of compromise” that now exists, said the US representative at the General Assembly, Ronald Godard.

“If Cuba believes that this exercise helps get things moving in the direction that both governments have indicated they want, they are wrong,” said Godard.

In introducing the resolution, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said the text reflects recent developments and welcomes the new course of relations between the US and Cuba, formally resumed in July.

“The US government announced a new policy toward our country, but the measures taken by the administration, whilst positive, only very partially modify some elements related to implementing the blockade,” said Rodriguez.

Ali Khoshroo, Iran’s ambassador to the UN, spoke on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of 120 countries that does not support any political bloc, and condemned the US position that contradicts international law and the UN Charter .

“The continuation of the embargo is totally unjustified and against Cuba’s efforts to achieve a sustainable development,” Khoshroo said.

Last year, 188 of the 193 UN members voted against the embargo. This time, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, who abstained in 2014, voted in favor of the resolution, leaving the United States and Israel as the only countries in opposition.


13 thoughts on “US Embargo on Cuba Rejected 191-2 at UN

  • October 30, 2015 at 10:19 am
    Permalink

    You make my point. It is our sovereign right to do business with whom we choose. These foreign firms can CHOOSE with whom they will do business as well. If your company prefers the Castros over US dollars, there’s nothing the US embargo does to preclude that business. No legal action, domestic or foreign, taken against our Cuban policy has worked to overturn US federal law. Countries all over the world have similar trade restrictions with other countries in conflict with their policies. You should be encouraging the Castros to open Cuba to greater democracy.

  • October 30, 2015 at 3:00 am
    Permalink

    If a French, Chinese or Peruvian company has US business interests they couldn’t seek to do business in Cuba as they would be fined or in danger of loosing their US business interests. And that includes businesses that deal in products that are exempt from the embargo. The company I work for is in the same situation. You like to call that a choice but it clearly infringes on our rights to do business and our rights to determine our own foreign policy. The EU brought an action against the US under international law on this issue. They have also passed laws to counter the affects of the embargo on European companies. So hardly just a bilateral issue.

  • October 29, 2015 at 6:18 am
    Permalink

    Once again you try and confuse those who are unfamiliar with Cuban History. Batista did not flee to the USA as you continue to insinuate. Cubans of all stripes fled the Castfo dictatorship throughout the 1960s on the Freedom flights and even sent their children unaccompanied to avoid Communist indoctrination. The brain drain caused by the progressional class fleeing was not caused by Batista. It was caused by a communist dictatorship. Something you continue to whitewash!

  • October 29, 2015 at 6:13 am
    Permalink

    Interesting. I don’t see Moses saying he wants to bomb anything and in fact his comment shows he is simply expressing hi opinion. It appears you are the one who is intolerant of other people’s opinion.

  • October 29, 2015 at 6:06 am
    Permalink

    I don’t know any Bastiano propagandists. I suspect that you don’t either. The US remains among the most popular destination for vacationers and the most popular destination for permanent immigration. Doesn’t seem like this vote has hurt our image too much.

  • October 29, 2015 at 5:59 am
    Permalink

    Your comment is ridiculous.

  • October 28, 2015 at 6:42 pm
    Permalink

    Obama is an absolute disgrace as president and the Cuban mess, which he doesn’t know which way to go, makes him look even worse. Bad advisors, bad decisions and now, after discussions with Castro, shaking hands and making it look like things are getting back to a semi-normal state he has the US vote against a resolution condemning the embargo. I’m counting the days until we hopefully can have in office a conservative political force that will either do business with Cuba or place a blockade around the island. Consistency is what is needed and our foreign affairs policy is frightening.

  • October 28, 2015 at 6:27 pm
    Permalink

    Yeah, Moses. Are you saying the U. S. should bomb or nuke every nation in the world except Israel? “Canada, Sweden, or whomever” includes an over-whelming majority of unbiased opinions that should be respected instead of ridiculed by Batistiano propagandists who, in no form or manner, can intelligently dismiss or even discuss it.

  • October 28, 2015 at 6:18 pm
    Permalink

    Yes, Moses, “a toothless tiger,” but it reveals to all the world how a handful of Cuban exiles who fled the Cuban Revolution after the ouster of the Batista-Mafia dictatorship in Cuba have so severely harmed the image of the United States and democracy once their newly constituted Banana Republic on U. S. soil aligned with enough self-serving right-wingers in the U. S. Congress.. I know that Batistiano propagandists in the U. S. dismiss the 191-to-2 vote similar to the way dictatorships or Banana Republics would do. But, Moses, it is out there vehemently showing that the entire world, including America’s best friends, oppose America’s Batistiano-directed Cuban policy. You love the term “non-binding resolution” but your fondness of it only reflects the disregard you have for democracy, which should at least factor in the views of the majority, especially when it is expressed in total or near unanimity. Propagandists promoting the continuation of a Cuban policy that shames America and democracy are bullies, nothing more and nothing less. That’s what convenient phrases such as “a toothless tiger” and “non-binding resolution,” as interpreted by anti-democracy propagandists, means, I believe.

  • October 28, 2015 at 10:42 am
    Permalink

    The US embargo is a bilateral issue. What Canada, Sweden, or whomever else thinks is irrelevant. My US government simply chooses to NOT do business with Cuba nor with foreign companies who would prefer to do business with Cuba. If a French or Chinese or Peruvian company wants to do business with Cuba, they are free to do so. They simply must choose between the two. I constantly disagree with my government but on this issue we agree.

  • October 28, 2015 at 8:57 am
    Permalink

    Who cares if it’s a “toothless tiger”. The message is still clear enough. Moses, would the tiger have to bite you first before you’re willing to stand up and be counted as someone who recognizes the difference between right and wrong? Are you capable of disagreeing with your government?

  • October 27, 2015 at 7:30 pm
    Permalink

    They should have worked out wording with Obama. Obama is trying.

  • October 27, 2015 at 4:18 pm
    Permalink

    The key phrase here: non-binding resolution. In other words, a toothless tiger.

Leave a Reply

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