“It is time for the United States to change their policy towards Cuba. The time has come to end the embargo.” Who can this quote be attributed to? If you guessed, you would most probably attribute it to a Cuban politician of international standing. And if so, who we can choose from? Was it Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Cuba's minister of foreign affairs, introducing this year's Cuban Resolution — entitled “Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo Imposed by the United States of America Against Cuba” — at the New York meeting of the UN General Assembly on 29 November? The resolution passed with a record vote of 188 countries to only the US and Israel voting against. Or was it Cuba's former president, Fidel Castro, in his much-quoted column, “Reflections”? Or perhaps Raul, Fidel's brother and Cuba's current president? Now, this is a multiple-choice question. You have the option of choosing between “one of the above”, “all of the above”, or “none of the above”. Should you opt for the last, your answer is correct. Let me explain. Although the word “embargo” is used in UN parlance and in all of the 22 consecutive yearly General Assembly resolutions on the subject, Cubans believe it's a misnomer. This is because an “embargo” is bilateral; it only concerns two countries, whereas a “blockade” — the term used by Cubans — refers to extra-territorial sanctions with a transnational global outreach, which constitute economic warfare. Cubans, who have suffered since 1960 under the terms of the US-imposed blockade, are highly cognisant of its meaning; they will not mistake it for an embargo. Only non-Cubans do. While it is true that the blockade initially only prohibited trade between the US and Cuba, it was fine-tuned over the years to further choke the Cuban economy. This was accomplished through the passage of two ingenious pieces of legislation: the 1992 Torricelli Act and the 1996 Helms-Burton bill — also known as the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act. “Liberty” and “Solidarity” require that imports into the US include less than 10 per cent in Cuban ingredients, while Torricelli prohibits foreign subsidiaries of US multinationals trading with Cuba and threatens severe sanctions for non-compliance. Torricelli also imposes a six-month ban from US ports on ships that anchor in Cuban waters. But let us not digress, and return to the unresolved question of the yet unidentified quote. It was, in fact, proffered by none other than US President Barack Obama, blasting George W Bush's blockade of Cuba. But this was back in 2004, when Obama was still an upcoming African-American senator of Illinois — presumably with a vision. But, as the song goes, “The times they are a-changing.” “When Obama was elected as the first African American president in US history, we were full of hope that Cuban-US relations would take a new turn,” Cuba's ambassador to Egypt, Otto Vaillant told Al-Ahram Weekly. “Instead, five years on, we have witnessed a reinforcement of the extraterritorial nature of the blockade. Between January 2009 and September 2013, the Obama administration has imposed fines in excess of $2.4 billion on 30 US and foreign companies for trading with Cuba, and other countries sanctioned by the US — this represents the highest price tag of US sanctions in history.” Since its inception, the blockade has cost the Cuban economy more than one trillion dollars. Or, to quote more recent figures, losses to Cuba's foreign trade bill from April 2012 to April 2013 amount to $3.9 billion. And the blockade not only affects trade as such, but the entire economic process. The cost of obtaining financing from abroad has increased by 76 per cent, given the perception of Cuba as a high-risk country — a byproduct of the pressure created by the ever-present threat of being slapped with US sanctions. One important provision of the embargo, which entails increased costs with consequent loss of revenue, is caused by Cuba's lack of access to US dollars and US banks. Over the period quoted above, the Cuban ALIMPRT Company, which trades in the vital sector of foodstuffs, paid an excess of $65 million as a result of such limitations. What about the other mechanisms of this “blockade without borders”? An example that comes to mind is the geographical relocation of trade to distant markets, another cause for inflated costs. The import of goods, for the education sector alone, cost $1.12 million in 2012. Had the same goods been imported from the Southern US, their price would have been halved to $543,800. Because of market confinement, the Cuban government's additional expenditures translate into a loss of much-needed investment in this and all other sectors. Sergio Alejandro Gomez, of the Cuban daily Granma, explains the blockade's small print. Take its extraterritorial definition that prohibits all foreign companies from trading with Cuba, if they have US affiliates. The recent case of Bayer, the German pharmaceutical multinational, illustrates the point well. For the past 118 years, Cuba was buying Bayer pharmaceuticals, until one of its regional divisions decided to change its legal address to New Jersey in the US. The MEDICUBA enterprise, a Cuban Bayer affiliate that imports supplies for the health sector, was then obliged to cancel contracts to acquire Ultravist, a contract agent for radiological tests, and Interferon beta 1-b, a drug used for the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis. A poignant example of the blockade's fatal ripple effects on human health and wellbeing dates back to 1981, when in an effort to destroy the island's agricultural output the US used chemical weapons to spray Cuban fields. Aside from destroying crops, the assault produced a lethal species of mosquito until then unknown locally, but renowned in the US — the Aedes Agypti mosquito. Asked to provide Cuba with the chemicals used to combat the mosquito they had been instrumental in manufacturing, the US refused citing the provisions of the embargo. As a result, 158 people died, among them 101 children. “This summarised tale of my people's suffering because of the blockade illustrates the US intent which, according to international law, amounts to genocide,” says Vaillant. The Cuban ambassador is right. His accusation is confirmed by a declassified State Department report dated 1958-60 (Foreign Relations of the United States, Volume VI, Cuba), which articulates the US aim to use the blockade as an instrument to choke the Cuban economy and starve its people. “Every means should be undertaken to weaken the economic life of Cuba to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow the government,” says the report. The intention expressed in the report, in fact, coincides with the UN's definition of genocide. Based on the text of the 1948 Genocide Convention (Article 2, paragraph b), genocide is defined as “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a [human] group”. And because the stated purpose of the blockade is to “weaken the economic life of Cuba to bring about hunger and desperation”, its consequences imply the infliction of “serious bodily or mental harm” on the Cuban people. “The fact that the US blockade is genocidal informs our purpose of returning year-in and year-out to the UN General Assembly, to present our case,” says Vaillant. “And even though the assembly's resolutions are non-binding, they express the support of the international community of nations, because Cuba treads on the moral high ground. Unlike the US, we believe in global solidarity.”
