En idiomas: Francés e Inglés
Informe de Cuba Sobre la resolución 65/6 de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, titulada “Necesidad de poner fin al bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero impuesto por los Estados Unidos de América contra Cuba”
Julio de 2011
ÍNDICE
INTRODUCCION
CAPITULO I. CONTINUIDAD EN LA POLITICA DEL BLOQUEO ECONOMICO, COMERCIAL Y FINANCIERO CONTRA CUBA.
1.1 Principales medidas de continuidad del bloqueo adoptadas por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos.
1.2 Aplicación extraterritorial del bloqueo.
1.3 Afectaciones provocadas por el bloqueo en la cooperación de los Organismos multilaterales 0
CAPITULO II. AFECTACIONES DEL BLOQUEO EN LOS SECTORES DE MAYOR IMPACTO SOCIAL.
2.1 Afectaciones causadas a la salud y la alimentación
2.2 Perjuicios causados al intercambio académico, científico, cultural y deportivo
CAPITULO III. AFECTACIONES AL SECTOR EXTERNO DE LA ECONOMIA.
3.1 Afectaciones al comercio exterior.
3.2 Afectaciones a la inversión extranjera
3.3 Afectaciones financieras y bancarias
3.4 La Sección 211 de la Ley Ómnibus de Asignaciones Consolidadas Suplementarias y de Emergencia de los Estados Unidos de 1999 y las nuevas agresiones en el tema de patentes y marcas.
CAPITULO IV. AFECTACIONES DEL BLOQUEO A OTROS SECTORES DE LA ECONOMIA CUBANA.
CAPITULO V. OPOSICION A LA POLITICA GENOCIDA DE BLOQUEO CONTRA CUBA.
5.1 Oposición sin precedentes dentro de los Estados Unidos.
5.2 Oposición internacional.
CONCLUSIONES:
INTRODUCCION
El bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero del gobierno de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba persiste y se intensifica a pesar de la creciente y categórica demanda de la comunidad internacional, en particular de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas para su eliminación.
Aunque el actual Gobierno estadounidense ha adoptado algunas medidas positivas, éstas son insuficientes y extremadamente limitadas y no tienen la intención de alterar el complejo entramado de leyes, regulaciones y disposiciones que conforman la política de bloqueo contra Cuba.
La ley de Comercio con el Enemigo de 1917; la ley de Asistencia Exterior de 1961; la Ley de Administración de las Exportaciones de 1979; la ley Torricelli de 1992; la ley Helms-Burton de 1996 y las regulaciones de administración de las exportaciones no sólo se mantienen, sino que conforman la arquitectura jurídica de una política que califica como un acto de genocidio, en virtud de la Convención de Ginebra de 1948 para la Prevención y la Sanción del delito de genocidio, y como un acto de guerra económica de acuerdo con lo establecido en la Declaración relativa al Derecho de la Guerra Marítima adoptada por la Conferencia Naval de Londres de 1909.
Como consecuencia de la estricta y feroz aplicación de esas leyes y otras disposiciones normativas, Cuba continúa sin poder exportar e importar libremente productos y servicios hacia o desde los Estados Unidos, no puede utilizar el dólar norteamericano en sus transacciones financieras internacionales o tener cuentas en esa moneda en bancos de terceros países. Tampoco se le permite a Cuba tener acceso a créditos de bancos en Estados Unidos, de sus filiales en terceros países y de instituciones internacionales como el Banco Mundial, el Fondo Monetario Internacional o el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
A pesar de la retórica oficial que pretende convencer a la opinión pública internacional de que el actual Gobierno norteamericano ha introducido una política de cambios positivos, Cuba continúa también sin poder comerciar con subsidiarias de empresas norteamericanas en terceros países y los empresarios de terceras naciones interesados en invertir en Cuba son sistemáticamente amenazados e incluidos en listas negras.
El recrudecimiento de la persecución de las transacciones financieras internacionales de Cuba, incluida las que provienen de los organismos multilaterales para la cooperación con la Isla, ha sido uno de los rasgos distintivos de la aplicación de la política del bloqueo bajo la actual administración.
Ahora, los líderes de los grupos más furibundamente anti-cubanos con el control del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores de la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, se aprestan a un nuevo golpe en su obsesión contra Cuba, dirigido a impedir y obstaculizar la presencia de compañías extranjeras interesadas en la exploración de petróleo en la zona económica exclusiva de Cuba.
En ese sentido, la petición hecha a la Secretaria de Estado por el Senador por Florida Bill Nelson el pasado 19 de mayo en la que reclama a la administración intervenir ante el gobierno español para que la petrolera española Repsol paralice las prospecciones que planea realizar en Cuba, y la gestión en el mismo sentido de una delegación del máximo nivel político del gobierno de los Estados Unidos en Madrid, dirigida por Ken Salazar, Secretario del Departamento del Interior, demuestra que el accionar contra Cuba no conoce fronteras ni soberanías.
En el presente informe se consigna que el daño económico directo ocasionado al pueblo cubano por la aplicación del bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba hasta diciembre de 2010, a precios corrientes, calculados de forma muy conservadora, asciende a una cifra que supera los 104 mil millones de dólares.
Si se toma en consideración la depreciación del dólar frente al valor del oro en el mercado financiero internacional, que ha sido sumamente elevada durante el año 2010, y mantiene una tendencia creciente, la afectación a la economía cubana sería superior a los 975 mil millones de dólares.
CAPITULO I. CONTINUIDAD EN LA POLITICA DEL BLOQUEO ECONOMICO, COMERCIAL Y FINANCIERO CONTRA CUBA.
El bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba ha continuado aplicándose con todo rigor. Se mantienen intactos los fundamentos legales de esta política y se han reforzado los mecanismos políticos, administrativos y represivos para su instrumentación más eficaz, en particular, la persecución y el acoso a las transacciones comerciales y financieras cubanas en el mundo entero.
Sigue prohibida la exportación de productos y servicios de todo tipo desde de Cuba a los Estados Unidos. Continúa prohibida la exportación desde los Estados Unidos hacia Cuba de prácticamente cualquier producto o servicio, con excepciones muy limitadas y altamente reguladas. Los buques mercantes de cualquier país que toquen puertos cubanos continúan imposibilitados de entrar en puertos de los Estados Unidos por un período de 180 días.
Las empresas de ningún país pueden comerciar con empresas de origen cubano si tienen afiliación o intereses de algún tipo con empresas de los Estados Unidos, con independencia de las relaciones del país sede de la empresa con Cuba, de las leyes que rijan en su país de origen o de las normas del derecho internacional. Compañías de terceros países que tienen vínculos comerciales con Cuba son objeto de persecución, amenazas y sanciones por parte de las autoridades del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos en cualquier rincón del mundo, con independencia de su origen, su patrimonio, de si tienen vínculos o no, con los Estados Unidos.
Se ha recrudecido el acoso a las transacciones financieras de Cuba con terceros países, independientemente de la relación de esos países con Cuba, de la moneda que se utilice y las normas bancarias vigentes en los países involucrados.
Como norma, el ciudadano de los Estados Unidos tiene prohibido por su Gobierno viajar a Cuba, salvo excepciones muy limitadas y con regulaciones muy estrictas.
El gobierno de los Estados Unidos continúa afirmando públicamente la supuesta necesidad de preservar el bloqueo como “herramienta de presión” y mantiene los condicionamientos de orden interno como prerrequisito para modificar la política hacia Cuba. Es evidente que no alberga intención alguna de producir un cambio en su política hacia la Isla, ni de cumplir con las reiteradas resoluciones de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas que solicitan poner fin a esta inhumana política.
Las medidas anunciadas por el gobierno norteamericano el 14 de enero de 2011, entre las cuales cabe mencionar la autorización de los viajes de norteamericanos a Cuba con fines académicos, educacionales, culturales y religiosos; el permiso a ciudadanos norteamericanos para enviar remesas a ciudadanos cubanos en cantidades limitadas; y la autorización a los aeropuertos internacionales de los Estados Unidos a solicitar permiso para operar vuelos charter directos a Cuba bajo determinadas condiciones, son insuficientes y tienen un alcance limitado.
En lo esencial, dichas medidas no son indicativas de que exista la voluntad del gobierno de ese país de producir un cambio sustancial en la política del bloqueo, sino que son el reflejo de la creciente oposición de amplios sectores de la sociedad estadounidense al mantenimiento de esa política.
Con las medidas del 14 de enero el Gobierno estadounidense pretendió impactar positivamente la imagen de su fracasada política hacia Cuba en momentos en que el rechazo interno e internacional a la misma es abrumador. Sin embargo, en lo fundamental, las medidas se limitan a restablecer algunas de las disposiciones que estuvieron en vigor en la década del noventa bajo el gobierno del Presidente Clinton, y fueron eliminadas por George W. Bush a partir del 2003. El derecho constitucional de los ciudadanos norteamericanos a viajar libremente continúa siendo una quimera en el siglo XXI. Ellos siguen siendo los únicos en todo el mundo a quienes se les prohíbe visitar Cuba.
Al anunciarlas, el Gobierno norteamericano dejó claro que el bloqueo se mantendrá intacto y que se proponen usar dichas medidas para fortalecer los instrumentos de subversión e injerencia en los asuntos internos de Cuba.
1.1 Principales medidas de continuidad del bloqueo adoptadas por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos.
El gobierno de los Estados Unidos mantiene intacto el andamiaje de leyes y disposiciones administrativas que conforman las bases legales y las regulaciones del bloqueo. No han sido modificados los fundamentos sobre los que se erige esa política. Así lo demuestran las legislaciones y regulaciones vigentes que se relacionan a continuación.
Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo (TWEA, por sus siglas en inglés). Fue promulgada como medida de guerra en 1917 para restringir el comercio con naciones consideradas hostiles. Se expandió su aplicación con posterioridad, para autorizar al Presidente la regulación de transacciones de propiedad que involucraran en un país extranjero a alguno de sus nacionales, tanto en tiempo de guerra como “durante cualquier otro período de emergencia nacional declarado por el Presidente”. En esta Ley se basan las primeras regulaciones del bloqueo contra Cuba de 1962.
El 2 de septiembre de 2010 el Presidente Obama anunció la extensión de la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo, que supone en la práctica la continuación del bloqueo a Cuba. En un memorando suscrito por el Presidente a la Secretaria de Estado, Hillary Clinton y al titular del Tesoro, Timothy Geithner, se afirma que "la continuación de estas medidas referentes a Cuba conviene a los intereses nacionales de Estados Unidos".
Ley de Asistencia Exterior. Promulgada en septiembre de 1961 por el Congreso de los Estados Unidos autoriza al Presidente de ese país a establecer y mantener “un embargo total sobre el comercio entre los Estados Unidos y Cuba”. También prohíbe el otorgamiento de cualquier ayuda al Gobierno de Cuba.
Ley de Administración de las Exportaciones (EAA, por sus siglas en inglés). Adoptada en 1979, como resultado de la revisión de los controles sobre las exportaciones, otorgó al Presidente la autoridad para controlar, en general, las exportaciones y reexportaciones de bienes y tecnología y, en particular, aquellas que se consideraran en detrimento de la seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos.
Ley para la Democracia Cubana (CDA, por sus siglas en inglés). Esta Ley, más conocida como la Ley Torricelli, fue firmada por el Presidente Bush padre en octubre de 1992. Con ella, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos reforzó las medidas económicas contra Cuba y brindó sustento normativo a la extraterritorialidad del bloqueo. Prohíbe a compañías subsidiarias norteamericanas en terceros países realizar transacciones con Cuba o nacionales cubanos y la entrada a territorio norteamericano, durante un plazo de 180 días, de los barcos de terceros países que hubieran tocado puertos cubanos, entre otras restricciones.
Ley para la Solidaridad Democrática y la Libertad Cubana. Conocida como la Ley Helms-Burton. Fue aprobada por el presidente Clinton en marzo de 1996. Tiene el objetivo esencial de obstaculizar y desestimular la inversión extranjera, así como internacionalizar el bloqueo contra Cuba. Codificó las disposiciones del bloqueo, limitó las prerrogativas del Presidente para suspender esta política y amplió el alcance extraterritorial de la misma. Denegó la entrada a los Estados Unidos de los directivos de empresas extranjeras (y a sus familiares) que invirtieran en propiedades “confiscadas” en Cuba y estableció la posibilidad de presentar demandas en su contra en los tribunales de los Estados Unidos.
Regulaciones de Administración de las Exportaciones (EAR, por sus siglas en inglés). Regula las excepciones a la ley de Administración de las Exportaciones o las que se autorizan mediante licencias emitidas por el Buró de Industria y Seguridad del Departamento de Comercio. Está amparada en la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo y en la Ley de Administración de las Exportaciones.
La extensión de las legislaciones y regulaciones antes mencionadas demuestra que ningún bloqueo ha sido tan abarcador y brutal como el que los Estados Unidos mantiene contra Cuba.
1.2 Aplicación extraterritorial del bloqueo.
Transcurridos más de dos años de una administración demócrata que pretendió impactar al mundo con un discurso de cambio y renovación, la política de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba se ha caracterizado por un recrudecimiento de la dimensión extraterritorial del bloqueo. Se han fortalecido las sanciones y la persecución extraterritorial contra ciudadanos, instituciones y empresas de terceros países que establezcan o se propongan establecer relaciones económicas, comerciales, financieras o científico-técnicas con Cuba, arrogándose el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos el derecho de decidir sobre asuntos que son atributos de la soberanía de otros Estados.
Asimismo, el papel preponderante de los Estados Unidos en la economía mundial y en los procesos de alianzas estratégicas, fusiones y mega fusiones de empresas internacionales, ha continuado impactando negativamente a Cuba y facilitado el recrudecimiento de los efectos negativos del bloqueo, al tiempo que reduce el espacio económico internacional en el que Cuba puede operar.
Los principales lineamientos en los que se basa la política de extraterritorialidad son los siguientes:
•Se prohíbe que empresas subsidiarias de compañías norteamericanas que se encuentran en terceros países mantengan cualquier tipo de transacción con empresas en Cuba.
•Se prohíbe que empresas de terceros países exporten a los Estados Unidos productos de origen cubano o productos que en su elaboración contengan algún componente de ese origen.
•Se prohíbe que empresas de terceros países vendan bienes o servicios a Cuba, cuya tecnología contenga más de un 10% de componentes estadounidenses, aunque sus propietarios sean nacionales de esos países.
•Se prohíbe que entren a puertos estadounidenses buques que transporten productos desde o hacia Cuba, con independencia del país de matrícula.
•Se prohíbe que bancos de terceros países abran cuentas en dólares norteamericanos a personas jurídicas o naturales cubanas o lleven a cabo transacciones financieras en dicha moneda con entidades o personas cubanas.
•Se penaliza a los empresarios de terceros países que realicen inversiones o negocios con Cuba, a quienes se les deniega el otorgamiento de visado para entrar en Estados Unidos, lo cual se hace extensible a sus familiares. Esos empresarios podrían incluso ser objeto de acciones legales ante tribunales norteamericanos en el caso de que sus operaciones con Cuba se relacionen con propiedades vinculadas a reclamaciones de ciudadanos estadounidenses, o que habiendo nacido en Cuba, adquirieron esa ciudadanía posteriormente.
Durante el período marzo 2010 a abril 2011 fue significativa la imposición de multas multimillonarias a entidades bancarias estadounidenses y extranjeras por tener operaciones con nuestro país. Este tipo de sanciones tiene un efecto disuasorio, y en el caso particular de los bancos conlleva a la ruptura de los vínculos con Cuba y/o a que las transacciones cubanas tengan que realizarse en condiciones más precarias.
La persecución y el acoso a individuos y a empresas en terceros países ha alcanzado niveles demenciales, confirmando además, la persistencia del carácter extraterritorial del bloqueo.
En el 2010, la Oficina de Control de los Activos Extranjeros (OFAC) del Departamento del Tesoro multó a cuatro entidades por un monto total de 502 millones 721 mil 671 dólares, recayendo la mayor de ellas (500 millones) en el Banco ABN Amro, de Holanda, por realizar transacciones financieras no autorizadas en las que Cuba o nacionales cubanos tienen intereses.
El 15 de julio de 2010 la OFAC informó que la Unión de Crédito Federal de Naciones Unidas fue multada por 500 mil dólares por realizar transacciones financieras no autorizadas en las que Cuba tiene interés.
El 27 de julio de 2010, la Empresa importadora IMECO del Ministerio de la Construcción de Cuba firmó un contrato con el proveedor panameño VIBAS Import Export S.A. para el suministro de 4 motoniveladoras Komatsu, a través de la compañía TIESA, distribuidor de Komatsu en Panamá. Dos de estos equipos no pudieron ser suministrados por la negativa de la Fábrica Komatsu America Corporation (KAC) a satisfacer el pedido. Komatsu América alegó poseer evidencia de que otros dos equipos anteriores fueron embarcados hacia Cuba. Ello provocó una seria afectación en el cronograma de ejecución de la inversión de la obra Ferroniquel. El valor de cada motoniveladora es de 235 mil dólares
El 16 de agosto de 2010 el Banco británico Barclays alcanzó un acuerdo con fiscales federales de los Estados Unidos, según el cual pagaría 298 millones de dólares por alterar registros financieros, de 1995 a 2006, para ocultar transacciones financieras de Cuba, Libia, Sudán y Myanmar hacia Bancos de los Estados Unidos, ascendentes a 500 millones de dólares. Para los fiscales, estas transacciones constituían una violación de la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo y la Ley de Poderes Económicos Internacionales de Emergencia. De las transacciones realizadas, 61 correspondieron a Cuba, por un monto estimado de 6 millones 711 mil 798 dólares.
En septiembre de 2010, la OFAC solicitó a la ONG Cooperación y Educación Médica con Cuba (MEDICC, por sus siglas en inglés) toda la información sobre sus viajes y vínculos con Cuba para conducir una investigación. Al propio tiempo, los miembros de la Organización Global Links, dedicada a proveer asistencia técnica médica a países en desarrollo, recibieron una advertencia de la OFAC, la cual consideraba que se habían extendido en los días de permanencia en Cuba.
En el último trimestre del año 2010 la Empresa de Pinturas VITRAL tuvo que paralizar la producción en tres fábricas en las que dejó de producir 893 mil 800 litros de pinturas emulsionada, de aceite y esmaltes por valor de 2 millones 285 mil 800 dólares, como resultado de la cancelación del suministro de 120 toneladas de dióxido de titanio rutilo para la producción de pinturas para el bimestre enero-febrero de 2011, por parte del suministrador Petroplastic de México.
En marzo de 2011 se conoció que una tienda libre de impuestos para diplomáticos en España negó la venta de algunas unidades de cigarrillos a un diplomático cubano aduciendo las leyes del bloqueo. El personal se limitó a explicar que estaba prohibida la venta a ciudadanos cubanos, incluso diplomáticos, de los productos Philip Morris, de acuerdo a las regulaciones impuestas por la OFAC.
El 21 de marzo de 2011 la Empresa portuguesa “DigitalSign” comunicó a la Empresa cubana “Neuronic” que no le otorgaría el certificado digital, dado que esas validaciones eran concedidas por la firma VeriSign, compañía norteamericana, aduciendo a las leyes del bloqueo.
El 7 de abril de 2011 la OFAC impuso una multa de 22 mil 500 dólares a la aseguradora METLIFE de Nueva York por expedir un cheque directamente a un nacional cubano.
El 17 de abril de 2011 se conoció que el gobierno norteamericano pidió explicaciones al Banco español BBVA, a raíz de que este declarara en su informe anual que tenía un empleado en Cuba. La Comisión del Mercado de Valores de los Estados Unidos exigió al Banco, además, información sobre el alcance y la naturaleza de sus actividades “pasadas, presentes y previstas” en Cuba y le exigió también identificar cualquier contacto con las autoridades del país. Como se constata en las revelaciones de Wikileaks, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos ha decidido enfocar especialmente su accionar sobre las empresas españolas con el objetivo de interrumpir sus vínculos con Cuba, manteniendo un acoso permanente sobre las mismas.
El 25 de abril de 2011 la Firma Pay Pal eBay, que realiza transferencias bancarias vía Internet, canceló el envío de fondos del Grupo de Apoyo a Cuba en Irlanda a la cuenta cubana destinada a recoger donativos para Haití, tras el devastador terremoto que afectó a ese país. Pay Pal emitió la siguiente comunicación: “Estaríamos cometiendo una violación de la ley bajo el Acta de Comercio con el Enemigo, si facilitáramos una transacción cuyos fondos beneficien a Cuba… y estaríamos sujetos a sanciones de acuerdo a lo definido por la OFAC”.
La Firma Española FLINT DIVISION SHEETFED informó la necesidad de la sustitución de dos productos para la industria poligráfica cubana porque en su composición contienen más materias primas de origen norteamericano que lo que permite la legislación de los Estados Unidos para exportar a Cuba.
Una empresa europea canceló el suministro de Retroexcavadoras, modelo R984C, para la industria cubana del níquel, por tener un motor norteamericano CUMMINS, que los fabricantes le prohibieron vender a Cuba. Esto obligó a cambiar el modelo de excavadora ya estandarizado, lo cual pudiera provocar pérdidas aún no cuantificadas por rendimiento, inventarios y tiempo de gestión.
La imposibilidad de continuar comprándole a la compañía mexicana de cobre el ácido sulfúrico que se utiliza en la industria del níquel cubana implicó una pérdida de 14 millones 844 mil 128 dólares para Cuba. En el año 2010 se importaron 410 mil 491.632 TM, con un precio de flete promedio por tonelada de 73.66 dólares, mientras que el precio del transporte del mismo producto desde México hubiera sido 37.50 dólares la tonelada.
El proveedor europeo de piezas de repuestos para compresores de la Planta de Lixiviación y Cobalto, para la Empresa del Níquel “Comandante René Ramos Latour”, comunicó la imposibilidad de materializar la operación debido a que el fabricante de la mercancía procede de los Estados Unidos y no se le permite hacer negocios con Cuba. Hasta el momento ello ha producido afectaciones por valor de 26 mil 300 dólares.
Como resultado de la adquisición de la firma CENTAC, productora de compresores para la industria petrolera, por capital de origen norteamericano, se ha encarecido enormemente la compra de piezas de repuesto para los equipos existentes en el país. Mientras que el valor de un compresor está en el orden de los 60 mil dólares, las piezas para uno de ellos se le ofertan a Cuba por empresas de terceros países en 191 mil dólares, tres veces más caras que el propio equipo.
1.3 Afectaciones provocadas por el bloqueo en la cooperación de los Organismos multilaterales
Las afectaciones producidas por el bloqueo como parte de la política de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba se ha acentuado en el marco de los organismos multilaterales internacionales bajo el gobierno del Presidente Obama.
En enero de 2011, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos incautó 4 millones 207 mil dólares del financiamiento del Fondo Mundial de lucha contra el SIDA, la tuberculosis y la malaria para la ejecución de proyectos de cooperación con Cuba destinados a combatir el síndrome de la inmunodeficiencia adquirida (SIDA) y la tuberculosis.
Este acto deliberado para obstaculizar la ejecución de tres proyectos cuyo notable impacto en los segmentos de la población afectada es conocido, no tiene ninguna legitimidad ni fundamento posible, más que la voluntad de continuar arreciando la política de bloqueo en uno de los sectores más sensibles para el gobierno y la población cubana.
Cuba ha denunciado esta medida como una acción ilegal que busca, además, entorpecer seriamente la cooperación internacional proporcionada por el sistema de las Naciones Unidas a través de sus agencias, fondos y programas. Esta acción es tanto más grave por cuanto afecta a fondos destinados a la capacitación, prevención y tratamiento de personas afectadas por el VIH/SIDA y la tuberculosis, en particular la compra de medicamentos, antiretrovirales y alimentos necesarios para los enfermos. A la erradicación de estas pandemias el gobierno cubano y la comunidad internacional dedican sus mayores esfuerzos como parte del cumplimiento de una de las metas de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Mileno.
Como resultado de la denuncia de Cuba el Departamento del Tesoro decidió emitir una licencia general en mayo de este año para liberar dichos fondos, la cual vencerá el 30 de junio de 2015. Sin embargo, aun con esta decisión el gobierno de Estados Unidos se está adjudicando, arbitraria y selectivamente, el derecho a controlar los recursos que se destinan a Cuba por la vía de la cooperación multilateral.
Por otra parte, tampoco Cuba pudo adquirir un espectrómetro de masa con plasma acoplado inductivamente por un valor de 193 mil dólares, que fue solicitado como parte del Proyecto ejecutado por el Organismo Internacional para la Energía Atómica (OIEA), “Fortalecimiento del Sistema de Controles Oficiales de residuos químicos y contaminantes en Alimentos, mediante la Introducción de Técnicas Analíticas Nucleares, CUB/5/018”. Ese equipo es utilizado en la industria pesquera con el objetivo de verificar y garantizar la calidad e inocuidad de todos los productos pesqueros; e igualmente en el control de residuos químicos y contaminantes en los productos de la acuicultura.
Como alternativa se ha tenido que contratar grandes volúmenes de servicios analíticos a entidades extranjeras, lo que implica considerables dificultades relacionadas fundamentalmente con los altos precios, cuyo monto asciende a 70 mil dólares, el envío de muestras y los probables riesgos de pérdida de confidencialidad de los resultados.
Asimismo, desde finales del año 2006 se mantiene la negativa de los bancos suizos UBS y Credit Suisse, tenedores de las cuentas bancarias de la mayoría de los organismos internacionales con sede en Ginebra, a recibir directamente las transferencias bancarias de instituciones cubanas como la Oficina Cubana de la Propiedad Industrial (OCPI) y otros bufetes legales con sede en Cuba, para los pagos a favor de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI), en virtud de tratados internacionales, por el registro y renovación de patentes y marcas de empresas cubanas o con capital cubano. Ambos Bancos se subordinaron a las órdenes de los Estados Unidos y se han sumado a la aplicación de leyes extraterritoriales.
Como consecuencia de la misma política dirigida a afectar la cooperación de Cuba con las organizaciones internacionales, el Centro de Estudios Ambientales de la provincia de Cienfuegos (CEAC), que había adquirido un microscopio Carl Zeiss Axiovent-40, comprado a la firma alemana Carl Zeiss, a través del proyecto RLA 7/014 “Diseño e implementación de sistemas de alerta temprana y evaluación de la toxicidad de los florecimientos de algas nocivas (FAN’s) en la región del Caribe”, financiado por el OIEA, no pudo comprar el software AXIOVISION para el procesamiento de imágenes microscópicas, debido a que el mismo tiene componentes estadounidenses, por lo que le fue denegado el suministro.
El Departamento del Tesoro de los Estados Unidos congeló 8 mil 375 dólares destinados a efectuar el pago a un proveedor extranjero de equipamientos e insumos informáticos contratados por la empresa cubana EMED en el marco del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Local del PNUD para un proyecto en la provincia cubana de Pinar del Río.
CAPITULO II. AFECTACIONES DEL BLOQUEO EN LOS SECTORES DE MAYOR IMPACTO SOCIAL.
2.1 Afectaciones causadas a la salud y la alimentación
Los sectores de la salud pública y la alimentación continúan siendo objetivos priorizados de la política de bloqueo.
SALUD PÚBLICA
En el período de mayo de 2010 a abril de 2011 las afectaciones al sector de la salud pública se calculan en 15 millones de dólares, las cuales se deben particularmente a la compra en mercados lejanos y a los incrementos de precios de importación de material gastable e instrumental de uso médico, así como en medicamentos, reactivos, piezas de repuesto y equipos.
El daño causado a Cuba por el bloqueo es particularmente cruel en esta esfera, no sólo por sus efectos económicos, sino también por el sufrimiento que ocasiona a los pacientes y sus familiares el no poder contar, en muchas ocasiones y en el momento necesario, con el medicamento idóneo para la atención de una enfermedad.
Aunque las exportaciones a Cuba de medicamentos, accesorios y dispositivos médicos están autorizadas por la Ley Torricelli (1992) y la Ley para la Reforma de las Sanciones Comerciales y el Incremento de las Exportaciones (2000), se mantienen importantes restricciones. Las ventas de los productos del sector de la salud no se benefician de la exención de licencia (o licencia automática) establecida para los productos agrícolas por el Departamento de Comercio. Se requiere de una licencia específica, concedida caso a caso, con una vigencia determinada.
Los productos susceptibles de ser autorizados deben cumplir requisitos de control y clasificación establecidos por las Regulaciones para la Administración de las Exportaciones del Departamento de Comercio, que establece Listas de Control, atendiendo a disposiciones dictadas por consideraciones de seguridad nacional o vinculadas a la industria de la biotecnología.
El otorgamiento de las licencias se condiciona a que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos sea capaz de monitorear y verificar, mediante inspecciones in situ u otros medios, que el producto sea utilizado para el propósito para el cual se autorizó. Como política, no se autoriza la venta de tecnología de punta en ese sector.
Hasta el momento, las importaciones realizadas desde Estados Unidos directamente han sido insignificantes y en lo esencial se trata de material gastable.
Entre los muchos ejemplos que demuestran los daños ocasionados en la esfera de la salud, se incluyen los siguientes:
El Instituto de Cardiología y Cirugía Cardiovascular tiene previsto para el presente año alrededor de 400 intervenciones quirúrgicas. El 70 % de ellas serán revascularizaciones aortocoronarias para las cuales son empleadas entre 24 y 30 clip de mamarias por paciente. Si Cuba pudiera adquirir este producto de la Firma Horizon, norteamericana, su precio oscilaría entre 0.30 y 0.40 centavos dólar. Sin embargo, su adquisición en terceros países lo eleva a 0.78 centavos dólar.
Asimismo, al retirarse la Firma Saint Jude de Cuba, comercializadora de las válvulas mitrales y aórticas, el Instituto está obligado a adquirir esos insumos en terceros países por un precio de 1 200 dólares cada una, lo que significa entre 400 y 500 dólares más que lo contratado con Saint Jude. De igual forma sucede con la compra de estabilizadores y movilizadores cardíacos, los cuales se emplean para hacer cirugía sin paro cardíaco. A Cuba se le niega el derecho de comprarlos a la firma Medtronic.
El Hospital Frank País, especializado en ortopedia y traumatología, se ha visto obligado a recurrir a otros mercados y afectar parte de sus servicios como resultado de la negativa de la empresa norteamericana AMRON, con sede en California, a proporcionar los componentes que requiere el mantenimiento cada tres años de la Cámara Hiperbárica adquirida a la Empresa mexicana REMISA. De igual modo, la empresa norteamericana KAPACK le niega al mismo Hospital, el único que tiene un banco de tejido óseo en el país, el suministro de bolsas de polietileno de alta densidad para rembolsar el tejido procesado, lo que causa innumerables dificultades.
El Instituto Nacional de Endocrinología y Enfermedades Metabólicas de Cuba no ha podido comprar a la Firma norteamericana Perkin Elmers el equipo contador de Radiaciones Gamma, destinado al procesamiento de los análisis hormonales que se realizan en el diagnostico de enfermedades de la especialidad, ni obtener piezas de repuesto para poner en óptimo funcionamiento un equipo adquirido en el año 1974, por lo que se ve obligada a acudir al mercado europeo con un incremento de precios considerable.
Asimismo, el Instituto de Oncología y Radiobiología, en su servicio de Oncopediatría, no ha podido utilizar las prótesis extensibles para sustituir las partes óseas en la cirugía de tumores. Consecuentemente, no ha podido realizar tratamientos conservadores ni funcionales en los niños y jóvenes afectados por tumores malignos de los huesos, debido a que las mismas son comercializadas por empresas norteamericanas. El Departamento de Radioterapia del mismo Instituto también ha confrontado serias dificultades para el suministro de piezas y accesorios como resultado de la compra de la Empresa MDS Nordion de Canadá por la norteamericana Best Medical.
Por otro lado, como se ha denunciado en informes anteriores, a Cuba se le continúa negando la compra de citostáticos novedosos de producción norteamericana como la adriamicina liposomal y la nitrosoureas, específicas para tratar tumores encefálicos.
Igualmente sucede con los antibióticos de última generación para niños menores de un año, específicamente para uso por vía oral. Algunos sustitutos son adquiridos, pero de manera parcial o fuera de tiempo, lo que limita la realización de tratamientos completos en el plazo y momento requeridos.
El Instituto de Oncología se ve privado de contar con un citómetro de flujo, para el estudio de las células cancerosas, dado que la firma norteamericana Becton Dickinson al conocer que su destino era Cuba, le negó su venta a la Empresa intermediaria en la compra.
El Programa Nacional de Trasplante Renal de Cuba para sus estudios de Histo Compatibilidad (HLA), sobre bases científicas y éticas, requiere de reactivos serológicos anti HLA de alta calidad, que durante años fueron adquiridos a la firma One Lamda, a través de terceros países. El recrudecimiento del bloqueo ha incidido negativamente en la adquisición de dichos reactivos, lo que traerá como consecuencia la paralización del Programa Nacional de Trasplante o lo llevará a un plano científicamente inferior.
ALIMENTACION
El bloqueo incide negativamente en el sector de la alimentación y perjudica de manera directa a la población cubana por lo sensible de este tema.
Desde marzo de 2010 a marzo de 2011, las afectaciones se calculan en el orden de los 120 millones 300 mil dólares.
La necesidad de comprar alimentos en mercados lejanos, con el incremento en seguros y fletes que ello entraña, y en muchas ocasiones en condiciones desfavorables, caracterizan los efectos que en esta esfera impone el bloqueo.
A pesar de la posibilidad de importar productos agrícolas y alimentos desde Estados Unidos la Empresa ALIMPORT enfrenta las dificultades generadas por las condiciones onerosas y altamente reguladas en que se realizan estas compras desde el 2001, así como las afectaciones que se reflejan en el campo financiero y en la pérdida de oportunidades logísticas respecto a otros mercados. Su afectación se estima en el orden de 90 millones 800 mil dólares. Este valor equivaldría a haber comprado uno de estos productos a precio promedio del 2010: 325 mil toneladas de trigo, ó 380 mil toneladas de maíz, o 125 mil toneladas de pollo.
Se mantiene el complejo mecanismo de licencias que opera tanto para los viajes de los empresarios estadounidenses, como para la firma de los contratos, la transportación y el pago derivados de estas transacciones. Además de estas condicionantes, la OFAC tiene la facultad de cancelar estas licencias sin previo aviso y sin argumentos explícitos.
Los siguientes ejemplos ilustran la situación:
La Empresa CORACAN S.A. dedicada a la producción y comercialización de alimentos instantáneos se ha visto afectada durante el 2010 en 162 mil 100 dólares. Esta empresa ha confrontado serias dificultades para la adquisición de edulcorantes hipocalóricos artificiales, particularmente el edulcorante neotame, cuyo poder de endulzamiento oscila entre 8000 y 13 000 veces más que el azúcar, dado que la fabricación y comercialización de dichos productos está monopolizada por compañías norteamericanas.
La Empresa Comercial Caribex se ha visto afectada por la imposibilidad de acceder al mercado norteamericano, donde las colas de langosta están libres de aranceles, mientras que el mercado europeo, Canadá y China, están gravados por valor de 4.3, 5 y 10 por ciento respectivamente, lo que ha representado una afectación en el orden de los 573 mil100 dólares.
La imposibilidad de acceder al mercado norteamericano con los rones cubanos, particularmente con la marca líder Havana Club, significa que se ha dejado de vender 2 millones 600 mil cajas de ron, que calculadas al precio promedio de facturación de Havana Club Internacional en el año 2010, representa una afectación económica del orden de 106 millones 132 mil dólares.
La empresa exportadora CUBAEXPORT registró la afectación generada por el error de dos clientes en Europa de pagar en dólares facturas por un valor superior a los 270 mil dólares por ventas de más de 140 toneladas de miel a granel pagaderas en euro y franco suizo. Los montos fueron congelados, por lo que la empresa se vio afectada toda vez que el dinero fue incautado y no ha sido devuelto, sólo ha podido cobrar una parte del mismo.
La empresa importadora QUIMIMPORT, encargada de los suministros de fertilizantes, herbicidas y plaguicidas para la agricultura, pudiera adquirir muchos de estos productos en el mercado estadounidense de no existir el bloqueo. En el período analizado no pudo concretar la importación directa desde Estados Unidos de Fosfato Diamónico (DAP), debido a exigencias derivadas del cumplimiento de las disposiciones del bloqueo por parte del proveedor, por lo que finalmente la empresa tuvo que importarlo desde otros mercados con un desembolso adicional de 197 mil 600 dólares.
2.2 Perjuicios causados al intercambio académico, científico, cultural y deportivo
Los sectores de la educación, la cultura y el deporte han sido y continúan siendo fuertemente impactados por el bloqueo.
La supuesta “flexibilización” del gobierno de Estados Unidos en relación con las normas sobre los viajes a Cuba desde su territorio para algunos grupos de ciudadanos estadounidenses, como estudiantes, académicos, periodistas o miembros de organizaciones religiosas, no tiene en realidad el fin de promover relaciones amistosas entre ambos pueblos, sino promover sus objetivos políticos e ideológicos hacia Cuba.
EDUCACION
A pesar de los esfuerzos que realiza el gobierno cubano para garantizar la educación para todos, los efectos del bloqueo se traducen en carencias diarias que afectan el proceso de aprendizaje, la investigación y el trabajo científico de estudiantes y profesores en general.
Resultante de esta política, Cuba permanece sin tener acceso al mercado norteamericano para la compra de insumos escolares y materiales fundamentales para la reparación y mantenimiento de la red escolar, por lo que se ve obligada a adquirirla en mercados lejanos con una afectación económica de 881 mil 400 dólares.
Con ese monto se pudieran comprar diversos medios didácticos para la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales y de educación laboral en la totalidad de las escuelas primarias, escuelas especiales y secundarias básicas. También se podrían comprar más de 15 mil esferas geográficas que se necesitan para las escuelas primarias y cubrir el costo de las láminas de PVC necesarias para la producción de un año de componedores de palabras que se necesitan en las escuelas primarias y especiales para la enseñanza de lectura y escritura.
La educación especial es de alta sensibilidad para la población cubana. El proyecto “Profundización en el modelo cubano de Inclusión Escolar en Santiago de Cuba”, aprobado por la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional al Desarrollo (AECID) en el año 2008, por un monto de 100 mil Euros, tenía como objetivo específico mejorar la inclusión educativa de alumnos de la enseñanza primaria y media básica con necesidades educativas especiales (limitaciones físicas, visuales, auditivas y retraso mental), beneficiando directamente a 310 niños y jóvenes con las discapacidades antes señaladas.
Sin embargo, debido al bloqueo ha resultado sumamente engorrosa la adquisición de pantallas táctiles, pizarras interactivas, teclados inteligentes, impresoras y máquinas de escribir y grabadoras, entre otros medios indispensables para impartir una educación especial con la máxima calidad y resultado.
El sector de la Educación Superior de abril de 2010 a marzo de 2011 ha sufrido pérdidas por un monto de 5 millones 703 mil 443 dólares, lo que incluye las afectaciones a la producción y los servicios, el no acceso a la tecnología norteamericana, los precios de importación por reubicación de mercados y sus consecuencias monetario-financieras.
La Universidad de Ciego de Avila ha visto seriamente afectado el trabajo de los laboratorios bioplantas por la negativa de la Firma LKB-Pharmacia o BioRad de ofrecer mantenimiento a un cromatográfico de purificación de proteínas, a una centrifuga refrigerada, entre otros equipos. Los daños ocasionados ascienden a 94 mil 716 dólares.
CULTURA
Durante el período que se analiza la afectación al sector de la cultura asciende a 14 millones 913 mil 300 dólares, lo que incluye básicamente ingresos dejados de percibir por exportación de bienes y servicios, reubicación en otros mercados, gastos adicionales en fletes y seguros y afectaciones monetario-financieras.
Se mencionan solamente algunos ejemplos:
El 3 de noviembre de 2010 el Departamento del Tesoro informó al Centro de Estudios cubanos en Nueva York que no renovaría su licencia para llevar a cabo proyectos de intercambio cultural con instituciones cubanas.
La Empresa ARTEX S.A se ha visto afectada en la comercialización de discografía, servicios fonográficos y derechos editoriales debido a la imposibilidad de vender discos de manera asociada a las presentaciones que se realizan en Estados Unidos. Su afectación calculada de manera conservadora asciende a 150 mil dólares.
El Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural no tiene acceso a programas vinculados a las nuevas tecnologías tales como Google Earth y los Software Mapinfo y Arcview, utilizados en el tratamiento de los mapas e información digital, con sus correspondientes tutoriales para aprender el uso más adecuado de los mismos. De igual forma, se ven imposibilitados de adquirir materiales didácticos, audiovisuales y bibliográficos, así como accesorios necesarios para el equipamiento de talleres y laboratorios especializados de las diferentes manifestaciones artísticas.
El Instituto Cubano de Arte e Industria Cinematográficos (ICAIC) se ha visto afectado en su publicidad comercial debido a la imposibilidad de participar junto a empresas norteamericanas que se dedican a la publicidad en sectores como líneas aéreas, turismo, arte, cultura y deportes. La afectación se calcula en el orden de 220 mil dólares.
La cinematografía cubana a consecuencia del bloqueo se ha visto imposibilitada de adquirir en Estados Unidos materiales, piezas de repuesto y equipos, como películas virgen y productos químicos para el Laboratorio Cinematográfico del ICAIC, además de accesorios para equipos cinematográficos, el uso de licencias, patentes y marcas, como el THX, Dolby, MAC, Avid, Toons y Scenarist, para los procesos de postproducción audiovisual.
DEPORTE
El deporte cubano no escapa a los efectos del bloqueo. Sus afectaciones se calculan de manera conservadora en el orden de 1 millón 546 mil 565 dólares.
El Proyecto MARABANA/MARACUBA 2010 no pudo contar con la participación de aproximadamente 300 corredores norteamericanos debido a que no se les autorizó la licencia de viaje a Cuba, esto provocó que dicho Proyecto dejara de ingresar aproximadamente 102 mil dólares.
El 17 de febrero de 2011, el Departamento del Tesoro de Estados Unidos denegó la solicitud de licencia al “Sarasota Yacht Club” para organizar el evento deportivo en Cuba “Regata Sarasota-Habana”.
Cuba se ve limitada en cuanto a la adquisición de implementos deportivos Louisville, Wilson, Xbat y Rawlings, debido a que son producidos por compañías norteamericanas. Muchos de estos artículos son de uso obligatorio de acuerdo a los Reglamentos Oficiales de las Federaciones Internacionales, por lo que se ha tenido que acudir a terceros países para su compra, con una afectación del orden de 450 mil dólares.
Por cuarto año consecutivo, Cuba continúa sin poder comprar el equipo de Cromatografía Liquida de alta presión, que resulta esencial para la actividad del control antidopaje. A pesar de las gestiones realizadas por la Agencia Mundial Antidopaje, el gobierno de Estados Unidos prohíbe a la Firma Agilent Technologies la venta de este equipo.
CAPITULO III. AFECTACIONES AL SECTOR EXTERNO DE LA ECONOMIA.
3.1 Afectaciones al comercio exterior.
Cuba es un pequeño país en desarrollo con una economía que depende en gran medida del comercio exterior, de tecnología y capitales externos, de créditos, inversiones y de la cooperación internacional para su desarrollo.
Las afectaciones mayores se siguen concentrando en la prohibición de acceder al mercado de Estados Unidos, tanto para adquirir mercancías, como para comercializar nuestros productos tradicionales de exportación como el azúcar, el ron, el tabaco y el níquel; pero sobre todo, por la imposibilidad de exportar servicios, dadas las numerosas restricciones que impone el bloqueo, entre ellas las referidas a los viajes de los ciudadanos estadounidenses a Cuba, las comunicaciones y la transportación aérea y marítima.
Las afectaciones en la industria tabacalera se estiman en 79 millones 900 mil dólares. Los cálculos del impacto en materia de tabaco torcido y tabaco en rama, están sujetos al supuesto de que Cuba aún tuviera cuotas en el mercado estadounidense. Siguiendo esta línea de análisis, el sector dejó de ingresar 65 millones 600 mil dólares de tabaco torcido y 5 millones 500 mil dólares de tabaco en rama por no poder realizar sus exportaciones a este mercado.
Antes de la implantación del bloqueo, Cuba no exportaba tabaco mecanizado. En la actualidad ha incursionado en esta nueva manifestación del tabaco con las marcas MINIS, CLUB y PURITOS donde ha obtenido resultados alentadores. El mercado estadounidense tiene una demanda de aproximadamente 5 mil 500 millones de unidades. De haber tenido acceso al 1 por ciento de ese mercado se hubieran ingresado al país 7 millones 100 mil dólares.
Teniendo en cuenta las posibilidades actuales de producción y exportación de azúcar de Cuba al mercado mundial y el diferencial entre el precio facturado y el precio del Contrato No. 16 de Nueva York, aplicable a las importaciones de los Estados Unidos bajo el esquema preferencial, la Empresa CUBAZÚCAR dejó de ingresar en este período una cifra superior a los 37 millones de dólares.
La imposibilidad de entregar azúcar cubano en la Bolsa de Nueva York es un argumento utilizado por los “traders” para justificar que ante la ausencia de compradores finales ellos no podrían utilizar la Bolsa como una salida adicional o de emergencia, por lo que deberán ofertar nuestra azúcar a descuentos superiores para estimular a los compradores finales, lo cual entraña una desventaja para nuestro producto frente al de otros orígenes en nuestra región.
Las entidades del Grupo de Administración Empresarial (GAE) registraron afectaciones totales por 264 millones 64 mil dólares, con impacto sobre todo en aquellas vinculadas a los servicios de turismo, ante la ausencia de turistas estadounidenses.
La Empresa TECNOIMPORT tuvo afectaciones totales que ascienden a 42 millones y se desglosan en 3 millones 60 mil dólares por tener que transportar más de 3 mil contenedores desde puertos de Asia y Europa, al no poder acceder al mercado norteamericano, más de 23 millones de dólares en gastos adicionales por no poder utilizar el dólar en sus transacciones y 14 millones 500 mil dólares por tener que utilizar intermediarios.
La Corporación CIMEX S.A tuvo una afectación de 63 millones 976 mil 200 dólares. La División de Compras, Almacenaje y Distribución de la Corporación CIMEX S.A tuvo grandes erogaciones de capital fundamentalmente asociadas al costo adicional por las compras realizadas a intermediarios por un monto de 22 millones 700 mil dólares y el incremento de los volúmenes de inventarios, cambio de moneda, sobre gasto por flete y almacenamiento que alcanzaron 9 millones 730 mil dólares.
3.2 Afectaciones a la inversión extranjera
La realización de este análisis se ha apoyado principalmente en el Informe sobre las Inversiones en el Mundo, publicado por la UNCTAD (Conferencia de Naciones Unidas para el Comercio y el Desarrollo) y el informe “La Inversión Extranjera Directa para América Latina y el Caribe”- 2009 de la CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe) de mayo 2010, en los cuales se relacionan los datos referidos al año 2009.
Para la determinación del estimado de flujos de inversión que Cuba recibiría si no existiera el bloqueo, se partió del análisis de los flujos de IED provenientes de Estados Unidos que perciben los países seleccionados, así como el porcentaje que representan dichos flujos sobre las entradas totales recibidas por estos países en el año 2009.
El compendio de países seleccionados se estimó sobre la base de economías comparables a la de Cuba y características similares en cuanto a condiciones geográficas, y socioculturales básicamente, con especial énfasis en el destino sectorial de los flujos recibidos.
En la siguiente tabla se muestran los flujos de inversión extranjera totales y de los Estados Unidos recibidos por los países seleccionados durante el año 2009.
Países Flujo de IED Totales
(millones de dólares)
Flujo de IED provenientes de EE.UU. (millones de dólares)
Por ciento que representan los provenientes de EE.UU. del Total
Costa Rica 1322.6 747 56.5
Honduras 550.4 281 51
República Dominicana 2158.1 589 27.3
Colombia 7201.2 2 314 32.1
Nicaragua 434.2 60 13.8
El Salvador 430.6 74 17.2
Fuente: Elaboración propia con datos extraídos de Panorama regional de la inversión extranjera directa en América Latina y el Caribe. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), 2009.
A partir del análisis de estos elementos se puede suponer que Cuba pudiera haber recibido flujos de IED provenientes de Estados Unidos equivalentes a 600 millones 500 mil dólares como promedio en términos absolutos.
Aún cuando la inversión extranjera en Cuba está concebida como un complemento a los esfuerzos nacionales y se enmarca en el principio de alta selectividad asociada a proyectos de interés nacional con un significativo impacto económico y social, el bloqueo trae consigo graves consecuencias, entre las que se pueden subrayar las siguientes:
•No acceso a tecnología de punta que poseen empresas norteamericanas.
•No acceso al mercado norteamericano para las exportaciones de empresas mixtas en Cuba.
•No acceso a financiamientos provenientes de bancos estadounidenses para el desarrollo de proyectos con Inversión Extranjera Directa en el país.
•La aplicación de sanciones y presiones a empresas extranjeras por parte del gobierno de Estados Unidos, lo que genera un efecto disuasivo entre los potenciales inversionistas e impide el establecimiento de negocios conjuntos en Cuba.
Entre los sectores más afectados por las restricciones que impone el bloqueo a la inversión extranjera se encuentran: el petróleo, el turismo y la biotecnología. Al respecto, cabe mencionar por ejemplo que la empresa SHERRIT INTERNACIONAL CORP. con inversiones en Cuba en el sector del petróleo y la minería, registra un descuento en sus acciones debido a la imposibilidad de acceder al mercado y el capital estadounidense. Desde finales de junio de 1995, como parte de la aplicación de la Ley Helms Burton, las tres compañías fundamentales relacionadas con la SHERRIT que comerciaban con Cuba (Moa Níckel S.A, Cobalt Refinery Co. Inc y International Cobalt Co de la SHERRIT) fueron colocadas en la lista negra de los Estados Unidos. La razón fue su condición de ser un importante inversionista extranjero en Cuba.
El turismo se mantiene como uno de los principales motores impulsores de la economía cubana. Al cierre de 2010 llegaron a Cuba 2 millones 531 mil 745 visitantes, cifra que supera en un 4.2 % a la del año 2009. Este sector requiere, por lo tanto, continuar su desarrollo con oportunidades de participación para los inversionistas extranjeros en la infraestructura hotelera y extrahotelera, así como la construcción de campos de golf, entre otras actividades.
Las empresas de Estados Unidos con trayectoria en la rama hotelera y con fuertes inversiones en la región del Caribe no pueden acceder a estas oportunidades en Cuba debido a las prohibiciones del bloqueo. Tampoco Cuba se beneficia de las cadenas hoteleras estadounidenses que se encuentran presentes en la región del Caribe, las que casi en su totalidad forman parte de las 10 mejores cadenas hoteleras del mundo como es el caso de SHERATON, HILTON, MARRIOT y HOLIDAY INN.
En el sector agroalimentario, si no existieran las restricciones del bloqueo se pudieran constituir empresas conjuntas entre ambos países para el desarrollo de la producción de frijoles, soja, carne de res y cerdo, entre otros alimentos, así como las actividades de logística de acopio, beneficio, tratamiento de post cosecha y distribución, lo que garantizaría la sustitución de algunas de las importaciones que hoy se realizan desde los propios Estados Unidos, la reanimación del sector alimentario y la generación de nuevas fuentes de empleo, entre otras ventajas.
Por otra parte, la industria de la biotecnología cubana, que alcanza estándares de país desarrollado, no puede establecer alianzas estratégicas con empresas norteamericanas líderes en el sector para el desarrollo de proyectos de investigación y desarrollo.
3.3 Afectaciones financieras y bancarias
En el período que se analiza se ha incrementado la política de hostilidad, persecución y acoso del gobierno de los Estados Unidos al sector bancario y financiero cubano. Se ha endurecido el hostigamiento sobre instituciones financieras y bancarias extranjeras dirigido a limitar las operaciones hacia y desde los bancos cubanos, alegando la imposibilidad de operar con Cuba por ser un país incluido en la “lista de países patrocinadores del terrorismo”, a pesar de que la mayoría de las transferencias se realizan en euros u otras monedas.
Aunque no siempre resulta posible la cuantificación de las afectaciones, sólo a modo de referencia puede mencionarse que en sólo uno de nuestros bancos comerciales, los pagos rechazados estuvieron en el orden de 481 mil Euros, sin considerar otras monedas.
Las principales afectaciones producidas al sistema bancario-financiero son las siguientes:
•Encarecimiento de los costos financieros, al estar obligados a recurrir al “doble forex” para poder cumplir con las obligaciones que los acreedores exigen pactar en dólares, lo que origina pérdidas por las variaciones de los tipos de cambio o por el pago de coberturas con otras instituciones extranjeras para cubrir el riesgo de esas variaciones, y resulta bastante costoso.
•Cierre de cuentas en un número importante de bancos extranjeros.
•Negación de bancos corresponsales a confirmar o avisar cartas de crédito.
•Rechazo de algunos bancos extranjeros a realizar pagos de entidades bancarias cubanas.
•Necesidad de mantener saldos mínimos en cuentas cubanas en el exterior ante el riesgo de un embargo.
En el período que se analiza más de una veintena de bancos decidieron cerrar sus cuentas con bancos cubanos, a través de los cuales las instituciones bancarias nacionales realizaban sus pagos.
A continuación algunos ejemplos concretos de afectaciones a bancos cubanos durante el año 2010 y 2011:
•Un banco europeo devolvió fondos a otra institución bancaria cubana, alegando no aceptar pagos de Cuba según establecen leyes europeas. Otra entidad bancaria europea rechazó el pago de una confirmación de carta de crédito a través de un banco cubano, alegando no aceptar pagos de Cuba, mientras que otra institución también europea se negó a avisar una carta de crédito tramitada a través de la facilidad de otro banco de Europa, sin alegar razones concretas.
•Un banco latinoamericano envió un mensaje relacionado con dos pagos mediante cartas de crédito emitidas por un banco de Cuba, informando que su Comité de Riesgo tomó la decisión de no continuar operando de forma bilateral, por un plazo indeterminado y hasta nuevo aviso, a partir del mes de mayo de 2010.
•A iniciativa de un banco en Europa fueron cerradas la cuenta y las relaciones de corresponsalía que mantenía una institución bancaria cubana con dicho Banco. Similar situación ya había ocurrido anteriormente con otros Bancos cubanos. La ruptura de este corresponsal cerró la única puerta de entrada operativa para la imposición de remesas familiares desde ese país europeo, encareciendo cada orden de pago, al ser reembolsadas a través de terceros bancos.
•Un banco cubano tuvo que sustituir a una entidad aseguradora latinoamericana que participaba en un importante proyecto de inversión en Cuba, al ser comprado más del 40% de sus acciones por otra aseguradora estadounidense.
3.4 La Sección 211 de la Ley Ómnibus de Asignaciones Consolidadas Suplementarias y de Emergencia de los Estados Unidos de 1999 y las nuevas agresiones en el tema de patentes y marcas.
Durante el 2010 y los meses transcurridos del 2011 se han mantenido las situaciones de riesgos y potenciales afectaciones generadas en el 2009 vinculadas a las intenciones de algunos demandantes, en casos contra el Estado cubano, de apropiarse como medio de compensación, de marcas comerciales y patentes cubanas, amparándose en lo dispuesto en la Ley de Seguro contra Riesgos del Terrorismo, aprobada en el 2002 y extendida hasta el 2014.
Estos intentos de apropiarse de estos bienes intangibles vinculados a la propiedad intelectual, no son nuevos. Es conocido el propósito de la compañía BACARDI de apoderarse de la marca de ron HAVANA CLUB, escudándose en la legislación que esta misma compañía promovió en los Estados Unidos, la Sección 211 de la Ley Federal de Asignaciones del Presupuesto de 1998, relativa al registro, la renovación o la observancia en ese país de marcas de fábrica o de comercio, y nombres comerciales relacionados con activos nacionalizados en Cuba.
Esta Sección impide que titulares cubanos o sus sucesores en interés, empresas extranjeras con intereses en Cuba, puedan contar con el reconocimiento y disfrute en ese territorio de sus derechos sobre marcas o nombres comerciales registrados y protegidos en Cuba.
En febrero de 2011 se cumplieron 9 años de que el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (OSD), de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), ratificara que la Sección 211 viola las obligaciones en materia de trato nacional y trato de la nación más favorecida, contraídas por los Estados Unidos en el marco del Acuerdo de la OMC sobre los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual Relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC) y el Convenio de París para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial, y solicitara al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos poner esta medida, cuya incompatibilidad fue constatada, de conformidad con las obligaciones que impone el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC.
En la continuación de la saga seudo judicial sobre la marca Havana Club en los Estados Unidos, la Corte de Apelaciones en Washington falló en una disputada decisión de 2 jueces a favor y uno en contra, que la Oficina de Activos Extranjeros del Departamento de Tesoro actuó correctamente cuando se negó a renovar el registro de la marca Havana Club en los Estados Unidos a la empresa mixta cubano francesa
En contraste, el Tribunal Supremo de España confirmó, en febrero del presente año, que la propiedad de la marca de ron cubano 'Havana Club' corresponde a la empresa mixta, establecida entre la empresa francesa Pernod Ricard y la compañía cubana Corporación Cuba Ron.
Esta es la tercera vez que los tribunales españoles rechazan la pretensión de Bacardí de cuestionar los derechos de la empresa con sede en Cuba sobre esta marca desde que en 1999 Bacardí inició un procedimiento en los tribunales de Madrid para ser reconocida como propietaria de la marca en España y cancelar los registros a nombre de su competidor Havana Club Holding.
La propiedad cubana de la marca ya había sido antes constatada por el Juzgado de Primera Instancia en 2005 y, de nuevo, en el recurso de apelación ante la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid en 2007.
El intento de apropiación de marcas y patentes de empresas cubanas pone en entredicho los acuerdos internacionales en materia de marcas y patentes y tiene serias implicaciones comerciales internacionales.
Conforme al Derecho Internacional los Estados Unidos tienen la responsabilidad de que sus leyes, reglamentos y procedimientos judiciales y administrativos estén en conformidad con sus obligaciones con los Acuerdos de la OMC y con los tratados internacionales de marcas y patentes de los que es Estado parte.
CAPITULO IV. AFECTACIONES DEL BLOQUEO A OTROS SECTORES DE LA ECONOMIA CUBANA.
La Industria azucarera ha reportado afectaciones entre abril de 2010 y marzo 2011 por 62 millones100 mil 500 dólares.
Debido a la imposibilidad de importar los insumos necesarios para el funcionamiento de los centrales azucareros, la zafra de 2010 y 2011 fue afectada por la entrada tardía en la producción de 13 centrales, lo que provocó que se dejaran de producir 168 mil 100 toneladas de azúcar crudo, que a su vez ocasionó una afectación de 57 millones 700 mil dólares. Al no tener acceso al mercado norteamericano Cuba está obligada a importar los insumos de mercados lejanos con el consabido incremento de precios y la demora en la llegada de los productos.
La industria turística cubana ha experimentado severas afectaciones provocadas por el bloqueo, las cuales ascienden a mil 713 millones de dólares.
Tomando como referencia estudios realizados por empresas estadounidenses del turismo, se estima que la industria turística cubana dejó de ingresar en el año 2010 alrededor de 1 668 millones de dólares por la prohibición de viajes a Cuba.
El Grupo Empresarial de Marinas y Náuticas, Marlin, de no existir el bloqueo, obtendría ganancias en el orden de los 10 millones de dólares, dado que dispone de unos 650 atraques que pueden albergar con un 75% de ocupación a unas 179 mil embarcaciones-día al año, que con una eslora media de 40 pies implicaría, sólo por atraques, ingresos por cerca de 5 millones de dólares. A ese monto podría sumarse lo relativo a los servicios de agua y electricidad, custodia, comisaría, combustible, tiendas, reparaciones de yates y otros.
La Empresa cubana HAVANATUR radicada en Canadá está obligada a pagar 1.6 por ciento por encima de lo que pagan otros turoperadores radicados en ese país por el procesamiento de tarjetas de crédito, lo que le ocasiona pérdidas de más de 1 millón de dólares. Asimismo, el Grupo ITH, encargado del abastecimiento al turismo, durante el periodo de abril 2010 a marzo 2011 ha sufrido pérdidas del orden de los 26 millones 700 mil dólares, debido a la diferencia de precios en mercancías compradas en terceros países, por intereses excesivos de créditos comerciales, variación de la tasa de cambio y compra de divisas y por concepto de fletes.
La Aeronáutica Civil de Cuba continúa siendo afectada por el bloqueo de los Estados Unidos. Desde mayo de 2010 a abril de 2011, sus afectaciones se estiman en 276 millones 506 mil 681 dólares, entre otras causas por el uso de aeronaves menos eficientes, gastos adicionales por arrendamiento de aeronaves, sobre precios de combustible, piezas de repuesto y otros insumos, así como pasajeros dejados de transportar. En ese contexto, y como resultado de la decisión de la compañía Shell España de disolver sus relaciones contractuales, la compañía Cubana de Aviación se ha visto obligada a comenzar con un nuevo proveedor para el suministro de combustible a sus aeronaves en el exterior, lo que ha causado pérdidas a la aerolínea cubana por alrededor de 271 mil 840 dólares.
Al propio tiempo, durante el 2010, Cubana de Aviación intentó recomenzar las ventas “on-line”, lo cual se dificultó mucho debido a la imposibilidad de utilizar el dólar estadounidense en estas transacciones y la reticencia de los Bancos a operar en otras monedas, lo que repercutió en detrimento del posicionamiento de la aerolínea en el mercado.
La prohibición al acceso del mercado estadounidense para adquirir piezas de repuestos de los camiones utilizados en los servidores de combustibles en los aeropuertos de La Habana y Varadero; tomas internacionales para el gaseo de combustibles; combustible de aviación; y partes y piezas para las aeronaves cubanas, ocasionó gastos adicionales ascendentes a 5 millones 7 mil dólares en el 2010.
Si para los vuelos comerciales hacia y desde Canadá pudiera utilizarse el espacio aéreo de Estados Unidos, se reduciría el tiempo de vuelo, la afectación al medio ambiente y desde el punto de vista económico, Cubana de Aviación tendría un significativo ahorro de más de 2 millones 26 mil dólares.
En junio de 2010, la Empresa Sky Chef radicada en Argentina, que brindaba servicios a Cubana de Aviación desde el año 2001, suspendió abruptamente el servicio de catering a sus vuelos, por instrucciones de su casa matriz en Frankfurt, Alemania, aduciendo la aplicación de la Ley Helms Burton. En esa misma línea, la también empresa europea Gate Gourmet, a la cual se recurrió como alternativa, igualmente rechazó la solicitud, alegando la no aprobación del contrato por su casa matriz en Zurich, Suiza.
El sector de la Informática y las Comunicaciones se ha visto severamente afectado por el bloqueo. En el período que se analiza el monto de las afectaciones se calcula en 7 millones 396 mil 394 dólares.
El 6 de octubre de 2010, la red social Twitter reconoció su total responsabilidad por haber bloqueado el envío de mensajes vía celular desde Cuba hacia su plataforma. De igual forma, en abril de este año se ha conocido que a Cuba se le está limitando el acceso a determinadas herramientas de Twitter con el argumento de que estamos accediendo desde un país prohibido.
En octubre de 2010 se conoció que un equipo de la Universidad Central de Las Villas, que obtuvo Mención Honorable en el Concurso de Programación Colegiada Internacional de la Asociación de Máquinas Computadoras (ICPC-ACM), celebrado en China, y auspiciado por la compañía norteamericana IBM, se vio imposibilitado de recibir el premio debido a las regulaciones del bloqueo.
La División EcoSOL Electric, que comercializa tecnología para la utilización de las fuentes renovables de energía ha sufrido igualmente el impacto del bloqueo debido a la concentración de estas producciones en manos del Grupo norteamericano Eaton, que ha agrupado la línea de productos de sistemas monofásicos y trifásicos, utilizados en la red eléctrica. La División se ha visto obligada a acudir a terceros países, perdiendo el precio de distribución directa, el acceso a piezas de repuesto, entrenamiento y elevando sus costos.
A partir de febrero de 2011, la Casa financiera Synivere dejó de realizar los pagos a la compañía cubana de comunicaciones ETECSA por concepto de “roaming” para telefonía celular, aduciendo que su Banco no podía realizar transacciones con Cuba, lo que implica que no se ha podido cobrar un monto ascendente a 2.6 millones de dólares, más las dificultades adicionales ocasionadas.
Los daños y perjuicios ocasionados a la Industria Ligera por las medidas del bloqueo del gobierno norteamericano contra Cuba ascendieron en el período a 9 millones 760 mil 200 dólares y unos 655 mil 900 pesos cubanos.
Las producciones de esta industria inciden directamente en las necesidades de consumo esenciales y en el nivel de vida de la población.
Con el millón 494 mil 900 dólares de afectación de la Unión Textil se podrían producir 88 mil 200 módulos de canastilla para los recién nacidos, lo que representa aproximadamente un 52% del Plan de producción de 2011.
De contar la Unión Poligráfica con el millón 649 mil 700 dólares en pérdidas causadas por el bloqueo podría fabricar 9 millones 200 mil libretas escolares de calidad óptima, lo que representa aproximadamente un 21% de las necesidades de libretas del país para el curso escolar del presente año.
Con las pérdidas por valor de 1 millón 368 mil 600 dólares que sufre la Unión Suchel, productora de jabones, podría producirse 872.8 toneladas de Jabón de baño marca Liz, lo que equivaldría a 6 millones 900 mil jabones.
La Empresa de Pinturas VITRAL, de disponer de los recursos financieros que representa la afectación por 2 millones 285 mil 800 dólares del bloqueo en este período, hubiera podido producir pintura acuosa y esmalte para 24 mil viviendas de 70 m2.
El sector del transporte no ha escapado a los efectos directos y extraterritoriales del bloqueo de los Estados Unidos con afectaciones totales por 244 millones 583 mil dólares en un año, fundamentalmente a causa de ingresos dejados de percibir en el transporte terrestre y servicios portuarios debido a la prohibición de los viajes de ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos a Cuba y de buques mercantes y cruceros norteamericanos o que toquen puertos de ese país.
El concepto de Riesgo País por el bloqueo norteamericano significó que los precios se incrementaron de un 40 a un 50%, así como los intereses de los préstamos, lo que representó un desembolso adicional de 39 millones de dólares por las compras realizadas por el sector del transporte.
La inclusión en una lista negra de los buques que entren a Cuba, continúa afectando los ingresos por contratación de tripulantes cubanos en embarcaciones, incluso de terceros países, por reparaciones navales, y por la actividad de cruceros por concepto de pago de impuestos de tripulantes, pasajeros, y gastos operacionales de las propias navieras.
El bloqueo afecta la contratación de fuerza de trabajo calificada para la rama marítima. Por concepto de no poder enrolar tripulantes en yates, cruceros y buques mercantes, a causa del bloqueo, Cuba pierde 10 millones 188 mil dólares al año
Las principales navieras de cruceros en el mundo, CARNIVAL. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, STAR CRUISES, NCL (Norwegian Cruise Line), MSC y COSTA, tienen capitales norteamericanos. Aunque todas ellas surcan el Caribe, el más cercano mercado para Cuba, el bloqueo no les permite la contratación de tripulantes cubanos, ya que sus buques tocan puertos norteamericanos y de Puerto Rico. Navieras de terceros países como BARCLAY, CGA-CGM, Hapag LLoyds, por tener buques que tocan puertos norteamericanos, tampoco pueden contratar tripulantes de Cuba.
Entre los ingresos dejados de recibir por exportaciones de bienes y servicios de reparación naval en este período, se recibió una cancelación de una reparación en un astillero en Cuba del Buque FOUR MOON, valorada en 1 millón 188 mil pesos cubanos convertibles.
Las afectaciones económicas, financieras y comerciales del bloqueo de Estados Unidos en la Industria Sideromecánica de Cuba se incrementaron con respecto al año anterior, totalizando 106 millones 226 mil 500 dólares. De ellos, sobresalen 47 millones 225 mil 58 dólares por el incremento del costo de importaciones, 18 millones 184 mil dólares por no acceso a tecnologías de los Estados Unidos, 13 millones 668 mil dólares por gastos adicionales en inventarios y 8 millones 918 mil 939 dólares de incremento del gasto en fletes.
El Grupo industrial de bienes de capital GBK, productor de estructuras, plantas completas, perfiles y recipientes metálicos, mobiliarios y equipos para diferentes industrias tuvo afectaciones en el año por valor de 835 mil 440 dólares con los que se podrían haber adquirido 710 toneladas laminados de acero para diversos usos con fines industriales y domésticos ó 178 000 muelas abrasivas semi-elaboradas para la producción de abrasivos, insumo fundamental en la industria de transformación de metales.
El Grupo de Bienes de Consumo GBC produjo flujos laminares kb-4, bicicletas mecánicas, sillones de ruedas, autoclaves, campanas de extracción de gases, ventiladores, cocinas, refrigeradores domésticos, moldes y troqueles, mesas calientes para restaurantes, herrajes sanitarios y de construcción a un costo de 27 millones 775 mil 980 dólares. De haber tenido acceso a los precios inferiores para las materias primas y otros componentes del mercado norteamericano, las mismas cantidades de esos productos habrían costado un total de 22 millones 307 mil 380 dólares, con un ahorro de 5 millones 468 mil 600 dólares. Con ese ahorro se habría podido producir el doble de refrigeradores domésticos, o sea 60 mil unidades en lugar de 30 mil para beneficio de igual cantidad de núcleos familiares.
Las prohibiciones y restricciones del bloqueo de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba, han continuado causando serias afectaciones a los programas de reparación y construcción de viviendas. La afectación causada en esta esfera entre abril del 2010 y marzo del presente año se calcula en 22 millones 547 mil 634 dólares.
Teniendo en cuenta los costos promedios por unidad por las distintas acciones de reparación y construcción de viviendas, se calcula que con la suma de las afectaciones se dejó de realizar una de las siguientes acciones:
•16 mil 400 reparaciones de viviendas a un costo promedio de mil 375 dólares.
•27 mil 330 mantenimientos a vivienda a un costo medio de 825 dólares.
•mil 132 nuevas viviendas de tipología I a un costo medio de 7 mil 200.
•mil 466 nuevas viviendas tipología III a un costo unitario de 5 mil 49 dólares
Por su parte, la Industria Básica también tuvo sensibles afectaciones ascendentes a más de 82 millones 600 mil dólares, especialmente como resultado de la imposibilidad de exportar níquel cubano a Estados Unidos y de acceder a suministros y tecnologías de ese país.
El mercado natural del níquel cubano es Estados Unidos, que en el año 2010 importó alrededor de 144 mil toneladas de níquel primario, fundamentalmente desde Canadá, Rusia, Noruega y Australia. Teniendo en cuenta su cercanía geográfica, Cuba hubiera podido exportar más de 30 mil toneladas anuales de níquel al mercado de los Estados Unidos, que al precio promedio del níquel en el mercado internacional en el año 2010 representa más de 654 millones de dólares.
De igual modo, Estados Unidos continúa siendo uno de los mayores consumidores de cobalto del mundo e importó alrededor de 11 mil toneladas de este metal en el 2010 desde mercados lejanos como Noruega, Rusia y China, entre otros. Dada su proximidad geográfica, Cuba sería un suministrador idóneo, que le podría vender alrededor de 2 mil 500 toneladas anuales de cobalto, que a los precios promedios del 2010 serian más de 98 millones 500 mil dólares que se están dejando de recibir en Cuba debido a las regulaciones del bloqueo.
En lo que se refiere a la industria del petróleo, la entrega pactada para junio del 2010 de dos balanceadoras para las refinerías de petróleo Ñico Lopez de La Habana y Hermanos Díaz de Santiago de Cuba, por valor de 272 mil 449.48 Euros, fue obstaculizada al detectarse que varios componentes de las mismas eran de origen norteamericano. Ello obligó a la búsqueda de suministradores alternativos, que provocó un retraso en la entrega de 9 meses con la consiguiente afectación económica.
El gobierno norteamericano también ha ejercido presiones sobre empresas petroleras operadoras de servicios y bienes o que han declarado su intención de negociar contratos con Cuba en el sector del petróleo. Entre otras medidas se ha amenazado con sanciones a varios ejecutivos y sus familiares. Ante tales presiones muchas empresas inicialmente interesadas en realizar negocios con Cuba se han retirado del país con los consecuentes daños económicos.
Lo anterior demuestra que el bloqueo de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba incide de manera directa y multidimensional sobre todos los sectores de la economía cubana, convirtiéndolo en el principal obstáculo para el desarrollo económico y social del país.
CAPITULO V. OPOSICION A LA POLITICA GENOCIDA DE BLOQUEO CONTRA CUBA.
5.1 Oposición sin precedentes dentro de los Estados Unidos.
La oposición al bloqueo creció también de modo significativo en los propios Estados Unidos.
No es posible enmarcar en pocas páginas las innumerables declaraciones y artículos de importantes personalidades civiles, militares, legisladores, medios de prensa, organizaciones no gubernamentales e instituciones académicas de los Estados Unidos que en el ultimo año han reconocido el fracaso de la política de bloqueo; apoyado los proyectos de ley para permitir los viajes de los norteamericanos a Cuba y/o la normalización de las relaciones bilaterales o llamado a levantar el bloqueo.
Sólo se refleja a continuación una pequeña muestra de las acciones o pronunciamientos más importantes y representativos que han reclamado el fin del bloqueo:
•El 20 de abril de 2010, la revista norteamericana National Journal publicó declaraciones de Aaron Saunders, director de comunicaciones de la Senadora Mary Landrieu (D-LA), en las que enfatizó que “el bloqueo (…) en el pasado nos costaba poco estratégicamente, pero este es un caso que pudiese costarnos mucho”.
•El 21 de abril de 2010 el representante John Tanner (D-TN), presidente del Subcomité de Comercio del Comité de Medios y Arbitrios de la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, en una audiencia que convocó sobre Cuba, afirmó que el bloqueo ha fracasado en sus objetivos y cerrado el mercado cubano a los trabajadores, granjeros y negocios norteamericanos. Añadió que “… se necesita hacer más y es hora de expandir los intereses económicos de los Estados Unidos”
•El 25 de junio de 2010, el expresidente de los Estados Unidos., James Carter, en declaraciones a Radio Catalunya, solicitó al presidente Barack Obama que levante el bloqueo contra Cuba porque es “contraproducente”. Agregó: “No apruebo las sanciones en contra de la gente de ningún país”.
•El 9 de julio de 2010, una encuesta por Internet del diario USA Today, en la que participaron 1 475 personas, reflejó que el 94% está a favor del levantamiento del bloqueo de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba.
•El 13 de julio de 2010, el representante William Delahunt (D-MA) publicó un artículo en el Washington Post, en el que consideró que poner fin al bloqueo “ayudaría al pueblo cubano más que al gobierno”.
•El 14 de julio de 2010, el senador Byron Dorgan (D-ND), en una intervención ante el pleno del Senado sobre el proyecto de ley a favor de la libertad de viajes a Cuba, se refirió a la incapacidad del bloqueo para cumplir sus objetivos, planteando que “no ha funcionado en absoluto”. El senador también consideró que era inmoral utilizar los alimentos y las medicinas como armas y enfatizó que “es impensable el hecho de castigar al gobierno cubano restringiendo los derechos del pueblo norteamericano, y eso es lo que hemos hecho durante los últimos 50 años”, cuestionando la autoridad del gobierno para decidir dónde pueden o no viajar los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos.
•El 28 de julio de 2010 el diario Tampa Tribune publicó declaraciones de la representante Kathy Castor (D-FL), en las que insistió que el bloqueo es “un experimento de 50 años que no ha funcionado” y agregó que “la imposición del embargo y las restricciones a los viajes permitieron al Gobierno de Cuba culpar a los Estados Unidos por sus fracasos…”.
•El 4 de agosto de 2010 la senadora Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), durante su intervención en una audiencia en el Comité de Agricultura sobre la política comercial agrícola de EE.UU. y el proyecto de ley agrícola, se refirió a la flexibilización de las restricciones al comercio y los viajes a Cuba como una “oportunidad extraordinaria” y añadió que es hora de aplicar un nuevo enfoque hacia Cuba, teniendo en cuenta que en casi 50 años el bloqueo no ha funcionado.
•El 19 de agosto de 2010 la representante Barbara Lee (D-CA) emitió un comunicado en el que dijo que se debe avanzar hasta la eliminación del bloqueo, que ha fracasado. La representante consideró que es tiempo de eliminar la “contraproducente e innecesaria prohibición de los viajes a Cuba”, así como las restricciones al comercio y reiteró su apoyo al proyecto de ley H.R.4645.
•El 2 de septiembre de 2010 la ONG Amnistía Internacional publicó un informe titulado “El embargo estadounidense contra Cuba: Su impacto en los derechos económicos y sociales”, que asegura que las sanciones impuestas por Estados Unidos a Cuba afectan en especial el acceso de la población cubana a las medicinas y las tecnologías médicas y ponen en peligro la salud de millones de personas. Exhortó a Obama a levantar el bloqueo y no renovar las sanciones impuestas contra Cuba en virtud de la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo. La Secretaria General de AI, Irene Khan, calificó la política de bloqueo de “inmoral y fallida”.
•El 9 de septiembre de 2010 en un comunicado, Amnistía Internacional criticó la prórroga por el presidente Obama de las sanciones contra Cuba bajo la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo. Destacó que esa política es “ineficaz y perjudicial” e hizo un llamado a Obama para que revoque el “torpe embargo que tiene un efecto devastador sobre la vida cotidiana de los cubanos”
•El 13 de septiembre de 2010 el sitio Web del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, CFR.org, organizó un foro por Internet en el que Julia Sweig, directora del Programa de América Latina, calificó la política hacia Cuba como “obsoleta” y expresó que el gobierno de Obama se movía “muy lentamente” en este tema. Dijo que creía que el comienzo de una nueva etapa respecto a Cuba por parte del Gobierno de Estados Unidos sería muy favorable.
•En septiembre de 2010 la agencia Bloomberg informó que la compañía de telefonía celular Nokia solicitó al presidente Obama levantar el bloqueo para poder comercializar sus equipos en Cuba, mientras que AT&T y Verizon Communications pidieron hacer más sencillo el proceso de llamadas telefónicas directas hacia y desde Cuba.
•El 9 de octubre de 2010 la Sección de Cuba de la Asociación de Estudios Latinoamericanos (LASA, por sus siglas en inglés), emitió durante su XXIX Congreso, una declaración condenatoria del bloqueo y apoyo la eliminación de las medidas unilaterales norteamericanas sobre Cuba.
•Entre el 3 y el 17 de noviembre de 2010 tuvo lugar una encuesta de “Cuba Standard” realizada a mil norteamericanos, la cual arrojó que el 47% de los encuestados desea que se levante el bloqueo contra Cuba, así como las restricciones a los viajes de los norteamericanos y al comercio. Un 22% estuvo en contra, mientras que el 31% dijo no estar seguro.
•Del 9 al 13 de noviembre de 2010 sesionó en Nueva Orleans la Asamblea Anual Especial Conjunta del Consejo Nacional de Iglesias de Cristo de Estados Unidos, el Servicio Mundial de Iglesias y el Consejo Latinoamericano de Iglesias, la cual aprobó una resolución abogando por un cambio en las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Cuba, la eliminación de las restricciones de viajes de los norteamericanos a la Isla y el levantamiento del bloqueo, así como por la revisión de las sentencias impuestas a los Cinco luchadores cubanos antiterroristas.
•El 2 de diciembre de 2010 el representante William Delahunt (D-MA) declaró, según reportó la agencia EFE, que es “absurdo” que el Congreso mantenga restricciones a Cuba, que obedecen a una “mentalidad de guerra fría”.
•El 30 de marzo de 2011 el expresidente James Carter, expresó en entrevista televisiva durante su segunda visita a Cuba que “En el futuro espero que puedan desarrollarse el comercio y los viajes entre ambos países y que se pueda suspender totalmente el embargo económico, que es una opresión para el pueblo cubano, y que no solamente afecta al gobierno cubano, sino que es el pueblo de Cuba el que más se afecta. Considero que las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Cuba deben cambiar.”
Carter agregó que “…, la mayoría de los cubanos desean que existan relaciones normales con Estados Unidos, y la gran mayoría de los norteamericanos también desean que existan relaciones normales con Cuba. (..). Considero que en los últimos años ha habido algunos progresos porque, incluso, la opinión pública dentro de los círculos de Miami y de los cubanoamericanos, incluso, los más jóvenes dentro de esa comunidad desean que se levante este bloqueo económico y tener oportunidades normales para poder viajar en ambas direcciones: de Estados Unidos a Cuba y de Cuba a Estados Unidos, esto es un cambio. (..)”
•El 10 de mayo de 2011 el Reverendo norteamericano Jesse Jackson, ex candidato a la presidencia y destacado activista por los derechos civiles de su país, declaró en entrevista con Prensa Latina en Doha, capital de Qatar, que "Si hemos podido (el gobierno estadounidense) conversar, entendernos y establecer relaciones con China, que tiene una ideología diferente a la nuestra, es una idea anticuada no hacerlo con Cuba" Agregó que "Además, somos vecinos y por eso nos necesitamos unos y otros, podemos desarrollar vínculos que aporten beneficios comunes" y remarcó que "espero el día en que caiga la muralla del bloqueo que separa a Estados Unidos y a Cuba".
5.2 Oposición internacional.
Es notable el apoyo creciente y abrumador de la comunidad internacional a Cuba en contra del bloqueo.
Son innumerables las voces que se levantan en el mundo a favor del cese de esta inhumana política. En el período que abarca este Informe, se produjeron numerosos pronunciamientos a favor de su levantamiento inmediato e incondicional.
Se destacan los siguientes:
•Los Jefes de Estados o Gobierno de la Unión Africana en su decimo-séptima sesión ordinaria, celebrada en Malabo, Guinea Ecuatorial, del 30 de junio al 1ro de julio de 2011, adoptaron una declaración especial que reitera el “llamamiento al gobierno de Estados Unidos a poner fin al injustificable embargo económico y comercial de larga data impuesto a la República de Cuba para permitirle disfrutar todas las legitimas perspectivas para su desarrollo sostenible. Se reitera una vez más, la invitación al gobierno de Estados Unidos para que ponga fin a las sanciones contra Cuba.
•La III Reunión Ministerial Cuba-CARICOM celebrada en La Habana los días 17 y 18 de septiembre de 2010 adoptó una declaración final en la que instaron, una vez más, a que se que se levante de forma incondicional e inmediata el bloqueo contra el pueblo cubano.
•Durante el debate general del 65 período de sesiones de la Asamblea General de la ONU, en septiembre de 2010, los representantes de alto nivel de 33 países, criticaron explícitamente el bloqueo y llamaron a ponerle fin. El rechazo al bloqueo de los Estados Unidos y el reclamo para su levantamiento fue uno de los cinco tópicos más abordados por los Estados miembros de la Organización, lo que demuestra que este tema continúa concitando gran preocupación en la comunidad internacional.
•El Consejo Mundial por la Paz, en su sesión del 11 de octubre de 2010 celebrada en Bruselas, en la sede del Parlamento Europeo, denunció que “Cuba, socialista y revolucionaria, continúa bajo el cerco, el bloqueo y la presión, lo que requiere la más incondicional solidaridad del Consejo Mundial por la Paz, en la lucha contra el bloqueo y la liberación de sus cinco héroes en los Estados Unidos”, según expresa el informe presentado por su presidenta, la brasileña Socorro Gómez.
•La Cámara de los Comunes de Jamaica adoptó por unanimidad el 19 de octubre de 2010 una nueva resolución de apoyo a la resolución de Cuba en contra del bloqueo de los Estados Unidos en la Asamblea General de la ONU, en la que, entre otras cosas consideró que: “… el bloqueo es una violación del derecho internacional y es contrario a los propósitos y principios de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y de las normas que gobiernan el comercio internacional y la libertad de navegación, así como que constituye una trasgresión del derecho a la paz, el desarrollo y la seguridad de un Estado soberano; y que en su esencia y sus fines, continúa siendo un acto de agresión unilateral y una permanente amenaza contra la estabilidad de un país miembro de la ONU”
•La Duma Estatal de la Asamblea Federal de la Federación de Rusia adoptó el 22 de octubre de 2010 una resolución aprobando el Llamamiento de la Duma a los Parlamentos de los Estados Miembros de las Naciones Unidas y organizaciones parlamentarias internacionales sobre la necesidad de eliminación del bloqueo, económico, comercial y financiero a la República de Cuba. El Llamamiento consideró que al no haber abolido el bloqueo económico contra Cuba, “..los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica continúan violando las normas y los principios de relaciones entre los Estados, ignorando la opinión de la mayoría aplastante de los miembros de la comunidad mundial, expresada en las resoluciones correspondientes de la Asamblea General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas” La Duma instó, una vez más, a los parlamentos del mundo a “llamar a los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica a…. levantar sin dilación el bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero contra la República de Cuba”
•La Asamblea Nacional de Panamá adoptó el 25 de octubre de 2010 la resolución No.19: “una vez más, lamentó el bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero aplicado a la República de Cuba”, al tiempo que respaldó “la exigencia de la comunidad internacional de poner fin al bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero que viene aplicando a la República de Cuba desde hace cuarenta y ocho años.”
•La Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, el órgano mas democrático y representativo de la comunidad internacional, en una nueva victoria histórica del pueblo cubano, de la razón y la verdad se pronunció, inequívocamente, el 26 de octubre del año pasado, por décimo novena ocasión consecutiva y por una abrumadora mayoría, casi unánime, en contra del bloqueo de los Estados Unidos, al aprobar por 187 votos a favor, 2 en contra y 3 abstenciones la resolución titulada “Necesidad de por fin al bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero impuesto por los Estados Unidos contra Cuba”. Participaron en el debate general y en explicaciones de voto contra el bloqueo 38 países individuales, incluida Cuba, así como varias organizaciones y agrupaciones internacionales, regionales y subregionales como el Grupo de los 77 más China, el Movimiento de los Países No Alineados, el CARICOM, la Unión Africana, el MERCOSUR y los países asociados, así como la Unión Europea.
•La Asamblea Legislativa de la República de El Salvador aprobó el 29 de octubre de 2010, con el voto mayoritario de los diputados de todos los partidos políticos, una moción de saludo y respaldo a la decisión de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas de exigir a los Estados Unidos de América el fin del bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero contra la República de Cuba y en la que manifestó su preocupación por la promulgación y aplicación de leyes y disposiciones reglamentarias como la Ley Helms-Burton, cuyos efectos extraterritoriales afectan la soberanía de otros Estados.
•La 41 Reunión Ministerial de la Organización Latinoamericana de Energía (OLADE), celebrada en Managua, Nicaragua, el 29 de octubre del 2010, aprobó de forma unánime, por primera vez, una condena al bloqueo de Estados Unidos contra Cuba, sumándose así a todas las voces del mundo que están a favor de su levantamiento.
•El Senado de México adoptó en noviembre de 2010 un Punto de Acuerdo en el que se “exhorta a la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores a fin de que el voto de la comunidad internacional en contra del bloqueo a Cuba se haga efectivo en México con medidas concretas para garantizar el levantamiento de dicho bloqueo”.
•Las Jefas y los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de los países iberoamericanos, reunidos en Mar del Plata, Argentina, los días 3 y 4 de diciembre de 2010, en ocasión de la XX Cumbre Iberoamericana aprobaron, una vez más, un Comunicado Especial sobre la necesidad de poner fin al bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero impuesto por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América a Cuba, incluida la aplicación de la llamada Ley Helms-Burton. Dicho Comunicado reitera “el más enérgico rechazo a la aplicación de leyes y medidas contrarias al Derecho Internacional como la Ley Helms-Burton y exhorta al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América a que ponga fin a su aplicación” Asimismo, pide “al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América que cumpla con lo dispuesto en 19 sucesivas resoluciones aprobadas en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas y ponga fin al bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero que mantiene contra Cuba.”
•La Comunidad de Estados del Caribe (CARICOM), reiteró el 8 de diciembre de 2010 su condena al bloqueo económico, financiero y comercial de Estados Unidos contra Cuba, en una declaración emitida por el líder rotativo del grupo y primer ministro de Jamaica, Bruce Golding, con motivo del aniversario 38 del establecimiento de los nexos diplomáticos con Cuba. La declaración calificó la política de bloqueo de injusta y que constituye el principal obstáculo en el desarrollo de Cuba y su recuperación de los desafíos globales como la actual crisis económica.
•La Asamblea Nacional de Gambia aprobó, el 23 de diciembre de 2010, por unanimidad, una resolución que llama a las Naciones Unidas, al gobierno de Estados Unidos y a la comunidad internacional a levantar el bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero impuesto por el gobierno norteamericano contra Cuba. La resolución, afirma, entre otros aspectos, que el bloqueo representa una violación de las leyes internacionales, constituye una violación fragrante, masiva y sistemática de los derechos del pueblo cubano, además de resultar una política contraria a los principios y propósitos establecidos en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas. El texto del documento califica igualmente la política seguida por el gobierno de Estados Unidos contra Cuba como un acto unilateral de agresión que viola los derechos soberanos de muchos otros países por su naturaleza extraterritorial.
•Representantes de los 28 países miembros del Sistema Económico Latinoamericano y del Caribe (SELA) condenaron en Caracas, el 22 de marzo de 2011, el injusto bloqueo que Washington mantiene contra la Isla Caribeña. El secretario permanente del SELA; José Rivera Banuet, reiteró el rechazo de la entidad a esa política y consideró que las relaciones entre EEUU. y los países de América Latina y el Caribe podrían mejorar sustancialmente si Obama decidiera poner fin al bloqueo, un tema que ha sido tocado -dijo- en los debates de los Estados miembros del SELA y de la comunidad internacional.
•El Movimiento de Países No Alineados, en su XVI Conferencia Ministerial (Intercumbres), celebrada en Bali, Indonesia, del 25 al 27 de mayo de 2011; reiteró el llamado para que el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos ponga fin al bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero contra Cuba que, además de ser unilateral y contrario a la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y al derecho internacional, así como al principio de buena vecindad, causa enormes pérdidas materiales y daños económicos al pueblo de Cuba. Los cancilleres del MNOAL exigieron nuevamente el estricto cumplimiento de las resoluciones de la AGNU que piden el levantamiento del bloqueo y expresaron profunda preocupación por el fortalecimiento de su carácter extraterritorial.
CONCLUSIONES:
A pesar de los intensos y crecientes reclamos de la comunidad internacional al gobierno norteamericano para un cambio hacia Cuba, el levantamiento del bloqueo y la normalización de las relaciones bilaterales, el gobierno del Presidente Obama ha mantenido intacta la política de bloqueo.
El bloqueo viola el Derecho Internacional, es contrario a los propósitos y principios de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y constituye una trasgresión al derecho a la paz, el desarrollo y la seguridad de un Estado soberano. Es, en su esencia y objetivos, un acto de agresión unilateral y una amenaza permanente contra la estabilidad de un país. El bloqueo constituye una violación masiva, flagrante y sistemática de los derechos humanos de todo un pueblo. Viola también los derechos constitucionales del pueblo norteamericano, al quebrantar su libertad de viajar a Cuba. Viola, además, los derechos soberanos de muchos otros Estados por su carácter extraterritorial.
El daño económico directo ocasionado al pueblo cubano por la aplicación del bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero de los Estados Unidos contra Cuba hasta diciembre de 2010, a precios corrientes, calculados de forma muy conservadora, asciende a una cifra que supera los 104 mil millones de dólares.
Si se toma en consideración la depreciación del dólar frente al valor del oro en el mercado financiero internacional, que ha sido sumamente elevada durante el año 2010, y mantiene una tendencia creciente, la afectación a la economía cubana sería superior a los 975 mil millones de dólares.
El bloqueo continúa siendo una política absurda, ilegal y moralmente insostenible, que no ha cumplido, ni cumplirá el propósito de doblegar la decisión patriótica del pueblo cubano de preservar su soberanía, independencia y derecho a la libre determinación; pero genera carencias y sufrimientos a la población, limita y retarda el desarrollo del país y daña seriamente la economía de Cuba. Es el principal obstáculo al desarrollo económico de Cuba.
El Presidente de Estados Unidos cuenta con prerrogativas suficientes para modificar significativamente el bloqueo contra Cuba, incluso sin la intervención del Congreso.
El bloqueo es una política unilateral, inmoral y rechazada tanto en los Estados Unidos como por la comunidad internacional. Los Estados Unidos deben levantarlo sin más demora y de manera incondicional.
Una vez más, Cuba confía en que contará con el apoyo de la comunidad internacional, en su legítimo reclamo de poner fin al bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero impuesto por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos.
Cuba’s Report On Resolution 65/6 of the United Nations General Assembly ( Idioma Inglés)
Cuba’s Report On Resolution 65/6 of the United Nations General Assembly entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.”
July 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: 0
CHAPTER I. Continued policy of economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba. 0
1.1 Principal measures to continue the blockade adopted by the US government. 0
1.2 Extraterritorial application of the blockade. 0
1.3 Adverse effects of the blockade on cooperation with multilateral organizations 0
CHAPTER II: ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE BLOCKADE ON THE MOST VULNERABLE SOCIAL SECTORS 0
2.1 Adverse effects in the areas of health care and food 0
2.2 Negative impact on academic, scientific, cultural and sport exchanges 0
CHAPTER 3. ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE FOREIGN SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY 0
3.1 Adverse effects on foreign trade 0
3.2 Adverse effects on foreign investment 0
3.3 Adverse effects on the financial and banking sectors 0
3.4 Section 211 of the 1999 US Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act and new aggressions regarding patents and trademarks. 0
CHAPTER IV. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE BLOCKADE ON OTHER SECTORS OF THE CUBAN ECONOMY. 0
CHAPTER V. OPPOSITION TO THE GENOCIDAL POLICY OF THE BLOCKADE AGAINST CUBA. 0
5.1 Unprecedented opposition within the United States. 0
5.2 International Opposition. 0
CONCLUSIONS: 0
INTRODUCTION:
The economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States government against Cuba has been maintained and further tightened despite the growing and categorical demand by the international community —in particular the United Nations General Assembly— for its elimination.
While the current US government has taken some positive steps, they are insufficient and extremely limited in scope. Furthermore, they are not intended to alter the complex structure of laws, regulations and provisions that make up the blockade policy against Cuba.
The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Export Administration Act of 1979, the Torricelli Act of 1992, the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, and export administration regulations are all currently in force. These laws are part of the legal framework of a policy defined as an act of genocide by virtue of the Geneva Convention of 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and as an act of economic warfare as outlined in the Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War adopted by the London Naval Conference of 1909.
As a consequence of the rigorous and fierce implementation of those statutes and other regulatory provisions, Cuba continues to be prohibited from freely exporting and importing goods and services to or from the United States, and it cannot use the US dollar in its international financial transactions or hold accounts in that currency in third country banks. Nor is Cuba permitted access to credit from US banks or any of their branch offices in third countries, or from international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the Inter-American Development Bank.
Despite the official rhetoric intended to persuade international public opinion into believing that the current US government has implemented a policy of positive changes, Cuba remains unable to trade with any subsidiaries of US companies based in third countries; and businesspersons from third countries interested in investing in Cuba are systematically harassed and blacklisted.
One of the distinctive characteristics of the current US administration’s implementation of the blockade has been an upsurge in the persecution of Cuba’s international financial transactions, including those that stem from multilateral organizations that cooperate with Cuba.
Currently, the leaders of the most vicious anti-Cuban groups in control of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs are preparing to deal a new blow as part of their incessant obsession with the island aimed at preventing and hindering the presence in Cuba of foreign companies interested in oil exploration in Cuba’s exclusive economic zone.
One example of how the actions against Cuba recognize no borders or sovereignties is the request made to the US Secretary of State by Florida Senator Bill Nelson. On May 19, Senator Nelson called on the US government to intervene before the Spanish government to force Spanish oil company Repsol to stop oil exploration works it had scheduled to carry out in Cuba. In addition, a top-level political delegation headed by US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar went to Madrid to pursue this same objective.
As stated in this report, the direct economic damages caused to the Cuban people by the implementation of the economic, commercial and financial blockade by the United States against Cuba up until December of 2010, at current prices and based on very conservative estimates, amounts to more than 104 billion dollars.
Taking into account the extreme devaluation of the dollar against the price of gold on the international financial market during 2010 and this continual trend, the damages caused to the Cuban economy would exceed 975 billion dollars.
CHAPTER I. Continued policy of economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba.
The United States’ economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba continues to be fully applied. The legal basis behind this policy remains intact and the political, administrative and repressive mechanisms aimed at a more efficient implementation of the blockade, particularly the persecution and harassment of Cuba’s commercial and financial transactions around the world have been intensified.
Exports of every sort of goods and services by Cuba to the United States continue to be banned, as have exports of virtually any goods or services from the United States to Cuba, with very few exceptions and under very strict regulations. Merchant ships of any country touching Cuban ports are still forbidden to call on any US port for a period of 180 days.
No company affiliated to or sharing interests with any US company is allowed to trade with any Cuban company, regardless of the relations that may exist between Cuba and the country where the company is based, the laws in force in its country of origin or the norms of international law. Those companies based in third countries that have commercial relations with Cuba are subject to persecution, threats and sanctions by US government authorities no matter where in the world they might be and regardless of their origin, patrimony and whether or not they have ties with the United States.
The persecution of Cuba’s financial transactions with third countries has intensified regardless of the relations these countries may have with Cuba, the currency used in those transactions or the applicable banking norms in the countries involved.
As a rule of law, the US government prevents its citizens from travelling to Cuba, with very few exceptions and under very strict regulations.
The US government continues to publicly assert its alleged need to preserve the blockade as “a tool to apply pressure” and maintains its conditions regarding internal order in Cuba as a prerequisite to modify its policy towards the island. Evidently, it has no intention whatsoever to bring about a change in its policy towards the Island or abide by the resolutions that have been repeatedly adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that call for an end to this inhumane policy.
The measures announced by the US government on January 14, 2011 —including lifting the travel ban to Cuba for US citizens for academic, educational, cultural and religious purposes; authorizing remittances in limited quantities by US citizens to Cuban citizens; and authorizing US international airports to request permission to operate direct charter flights to Cuba under certain conditions— are insufficient and limited in scope.
Essentially these measures are not indicative of the United States government’s will to substantially change its blockade policy, but rather reflect the increasing opposition to the blockade by broad sectors of the US public.
By implementing the measures announced on January 14, the US government was aiming to portray a positive image of its failed policy towards Cuba at a time when domestic and international opposition to that policy was overwhelming. However, such measures are fundamentally limited to reinstating some provisions that were in effect in the 1990s under the Clinton administration and were discontinued by George W. Bush beginning in 2003. The constitutional right of US citizens to travel freely continues to be an illusion in the 21st century. They continue to be the only citizens in the world who are forbidden to travel to Cuba.
Upon announcing these measures, the US government very clearly stated that the blockade will remain intact and that it intends to use these measures to strengthen the mechanisms of subversion and interference in Cuba’s internal affairs.
1.1 Principal measures to continue the blockade adopted by the US government.
The US government has maintained the entire framework of laws and administrative provisions that are part of the blockade’s legal basis and regulations. The basics of that policy have not been modified. This is seen in the laws and regulations in force listed below:
Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA): Enacted as a war measure in 1917 to restrict trade with nations considered hostile, the implementation of this law was subsequently expanded to enable the president to regulate property transaction involving any US national in a foreign country whether in times of war or “any other period of national emergency declared by the president.” The first regulations of the blockade against Cuba of 1962 are based on this law.
On September 2, 2010, President Obama announced the expansion of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which, in practice, is supposed to ensure the continuation of the blockade against Cuba. A memorandum, drafted by the president to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, confirms that “the continuation of these measures regarding Cuba is convenient to US national interests.”
Foreign Assistance Act: Enacted in September 1961 by the US Congress, this law authorizes the president of that country to impose and maintain “a total blockade on trade between the United States and Cuba.” In addition, it forbids the granting of any kind of assistance to the Cuban government.
The Export Administration Act (EAA): Adopted in 1979 as a result of a review made on export regulations, this law vested the president with the authority to monitor all exports and reexports of goods and technology, particularly those which might be considered as detrimental to US national security.
Cuban Democracy Act (CDA): This law, better known as the Torricelli Act, was passed by President Bush Senior in October 1992. With this law, the US government tightened the economic measures against Cuba and provided a regulatory framework for the blockade’s extraterritoriality. This law forbids US subsidiaries in third countries to carry out any transaction with Cuba or Cuban nationals and prevents the entry of third country vessels into US territory for a period of 180 days after they have touched Cuban ports, among other restrictions.
Cuban Freedom and Democratic Solidarity Act: Known as the Helms-Burton Act, this law was adopted by President Clinton in March of 1996 with the primary objective to hinder and discourage foreign investments in Cuba and to internationalize the blockade against the Island. It codified the provisions of the blockade, limited the prerogatives of the president to suspend the implementation of this policy and expanded its extraterritoriality. This law prevented the entry into the US of foreign company executives (and their relatives) who invest in “confiscated” properties in Cuba and provided for the possibility to file lawsuits against them in US Courts.
Export Administration Regulations (EAR): These laws come under the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Exports Administration Act, and regulate exceptions to the Exports Administration Act or those which are authorized through licenses issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the US Department of Commerce.
The scope of the aforementioned laws and regulations reveal that no other blockade has been as brutal and encompassing as that applied by the United States against Cuba.
1.2 Extraterritorial application of the blockade.
After more than two years of a Democrat administration that hoped to impress the world with its talk of change and renovation, the US policy against Cuba has been characterized by an intensification of the extraterritoriality of the blockade. The US government has intensified sanctions and the extraterritorial persecution of citizens, institutions and companies in third countries who establish or plan to establish economic, commercial, financial, scientific or technical ties with Cuba; thus assuming the right to make decisions regarding issues that are the sovereignty of other States.
Likewise, the dominant role played by the United States in the global economy and in strategic alliances, mergers and mega-mergers of international companies has continued to have a negative impact on Cuba and facilitated the intensification of the negative effects of the blockade, while further reducing the international economic sphere in which Cuba is allowed to operate.
The extraterritoriality of this policy is based on the following guidelines:
• US subsidiaries in third countries are forbidden to have any kind of transaction with companies based in Cuba.
• Companies from third countries are forbidden to export products of Cuban origin or products that have a component of Cuban origin to the US.
• Companies from third countries are forbidden to sell goods or services to Cuba, whose technology contains more than 10% of US components, even though their owners may be nationals of those countries.
• Vessels carrying products to or from Cuba, regardless of their country of registration, are forbidden to enter US ports.
• Third country banks are forbidden to open accounts in US dollars for Cuban juridical or natural persons or to carry out financial transactions in said currency with Cuban entities or persons.
• Third country businesspersons are penalized for making investments or carrying out business with Cuba. If they do, they are denied visas to enter the US which can be extended to include their family members, and are subject to legal action before US courts in the event that operations with Cuba are related to properties associated with claims filed by US citizens (including those who were born in Cuba and acquired citizenship at a later date).
From March 2010 to April 2011 there were several multimillion dollar fines levied against US and foreign banking institutions for having conducted operations with Cuba. These types of sanctions have a detrimental effect and, in the case of banks, entail breaking relations with Cuba and/or forcing Cuban transactions to be made under more precarious conditions.
The persecution and harassment of individuals and companies in third countries has reached absurd levels, confirming the extraterritorial nature of the blockade.
In 2010, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Department of the Treasury fined four entities for a total of 502,721,671 dollars. The largest fine (500 million) was levied against the ABN Amro Bank in Holland, for having carried out unauthorized financial transactions in which Cuba or Cuban nationals had interests.
On July 15, 2010 OFAC announced that the United Nations Federal Credit Union was fined 500,000 dollars for having carried out unauthorized financial transactions in which Cuba had interests.
On July 27, 2010, the IMECO Import Group at the Cuban Ministry of Construction signed a contract with Panamanian supplier VIBAS Import Export S.A. to buy four Komatsu graders through the TIESA Company, Komatsu distributors in Panama. Two of these graders could not be supplied due to the Komatsu America Corporation (KAC) factory’s refusal to meet the order. Komatsu America claimed that it had evidence that two other graders had previously been sent to Cuba. The failed delivery gravely affected the timeframe for executing the Ferronickel project. The cost of each grader is 235,000 dollars.
On August 16, 2010 the British bank Barclays reached an agreement with US Federal District Attorneys to pay 298,000,000 dollars for having altered financial records between 1995 and 2006 to hide financial transactions of Cuba, Libya, Sudan and Myanmar with US banks worth more than 500,000,000 dollars. According to the prosecutors, these transactions were in violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Of the transactions carried out, 61 correspond to Cuba for a total estimated at 6,711,798 dollars.
In September 2010, OFAC requested that the Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC) NGO provide all information on its travel and links to Cuba for an investigation it was carrying out. At the same time, members of the Global Links Organization, which provides technical medical assistance to developing countries, received a warning from OFAC that it had overstayed its visit in Cuba.
In the last quarter of 2010 the VITRAL Paint Company had to stop production in three factories, resulting in the loss of 893,800 liters of emulsion, oil and enamel paints for a value of 2,285,800 dollars as a result of the cancelation by supplier Mexico Petroplastic of the delivery of 120 tones of rutile titanic dioxide used to produce paints for January-February 2011.
In March 2011 it was learned that a duty free store for diplomats in Spain, citing the US blockade, refused to sell cigarettes to a Cuban diplomat. The employee said that they were prohibited from selling products made by Phillip Morris to Cuban citizens, including diplomats, based on regulations set out by OFAC.
On March 21, 2011 the Portuguese company DigitalSign told the Cuban company Neuronic that it could not grant it a digital certificate since these validations were provided by VeriSign, a US company, and citing the US blockade.
On April 7, 2011 OFAC levied a fine of 22,500 dollars against the New York METLIFE insurance company for having issued a check directly to a Cuban national.
On April 17, 2011 it was learned that the US government requested explanations from the Spanish bank BBVA regarding the fact that it had declared in its annual report that it had an employee in Cuba. In addition, the US Securities and Exchange Commission requested information regarding the extent and nature of its “past, present and future” activities in Cuba and demanded that it report any contact with Cuban officials. As revealed by Wikileaks, the US government has decided to especially focus on Spanish companies with the objective of breaking their ties with Cuba, by carrying out constant harassment of these companies.
On April 25 2011 the PayPal eBay company that carries out online bank transferences canceled the delivery of funds belonging to the Cuba Support Group in Ireland that were destined for the Cuban account set up to gather donations for Haiti after the devastating earthquake that ravaged this country. PayPal offered the following statement: “PayPal would be in violation, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, if we facilitated transactions where funds benefit Cuba…and we would be subject to sanctions as outlined by OFAC.”
The Spanish company FLINT DIVISION SHEETFED informed about the need to substitute two products used in the Cuban poligraphic industry since they contained a higher percentage of raw materials of US origin than that allowed by US legislation to export to Cuba.
A European firm canceled its delivery of backhoe loaders, model R984C, destined for the Cuban nickel industry since they use a US CUMMINS motor prohibited for sale to Cuba by the manufacturers. This forced a change of excavators that had been standardized in the industry and could lead to losses not yet quantified in the areas of performance, inventory and administration time.
A loss of 14,844,128 dollars came about when Cuba could no longer buy sulfuric acid from a Mexican copper company for use in the nickel industry. In 2010, Cuba imported 410,491.632 metric tons with an average shipping cost of 73.66 dollars per ton, while the price for shipping one ton of the same product from Mexico would have been 37.50 dollars.
The European supplier of spare compressor parts for the Cobalt and Leaching Plant at the Comandante René Ramos Latour Nickel Company informed that it could no longer supply the parts since the manufacturer of the merchandise is from the United States and is not allowed to do business with Cuba. So far, this has resulted in the loss of 26,300 dollars.
As a result of the acquisition of the CENTAC company (a manufacturer of compressors for the oil industry) with US capital, the cost of buying spare parts for the existing machinery in Cuba has skyrocketed. While the cost of a compressor is around 60,000 dollars, the pieces to build one of them have been offered to Cuba by third countries at a cost of 191,000 dollars, three times the cost of the machine itself.
1.3 Adverse effects of the blockade on cooperation with multilateral organizations
Under the Obama administration, the adverse effects of the blockade as part of the US’s policy against Cuba have increased in the framework of international multilateral organizations.
In January 2011, the US government seized 4,207,000 dollars of funding from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria earmarked for the implementation of cooperation projects with Cuba to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.
This deliberate act to prevent the implementation of three projects whose significant impact on the affected population is well known has absolutely no legitimacy or foundations other than to continue to harden the policy of blockade in one of the most vulnerable sectors for the Cuban government and people.
Cuba has condemned this measure as an illegal action that also has aims to seriously hinder international cooperation provided by the United Nations System through its agencies, funds and programs. This action is even more significant given that it affects funds earmarked for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis training, prevention and patient assistance, especially to buy medicine, antiretrovirals and food. The Cuban government and the international community have prioritized their greatest efforts towards eradicating these pandemic diseases as part of fulfilling one of the Millennium Development Goals.
As a result of Cuba’s formal complaint, the US Department of the Treasury decided to issue a general license in May 2011 to release these funds that are set to expire on June 30, 2015. Nevertheless, even with this decision, the US government is —arbitrarily and selectively— allocating itself the right to control resources destined for Cuba via multilateral cooperation.
In another incident, Cuba could not purchase an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer at a cost of 193,000 dollars that was required as part of a project implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “Strengthening Official Control of Chemical Residues and Contaminants in Fishery Products, CUB/5/018.” This piece of equipment is used in the fishery industry to verify and guarantee the quality and innocuousness of all fishing products and for the control of chemical residuals and contaminants in aquaculture products.
As an alternative, the country has had to contract out large volumes of analytical services to foreign companies, which has caused significant difficulties especially related to high costs (70,000 dollars so far), sending samples and the possible risks of losing the confidentiality of the results.
Similarly, from late 2006, Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse, the holders of the bank accounts of the majority of the international organizations with headquarters in Geneva, have refused to directly receive bank transfers from Cuban institutions such as the Cuban Office for Industrial Property (OCPI) and other law firms with headquarters in Cuba, for payments to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) according to international treaties on registering and renewing Cuban patents and trademarks, or patents and trademarks with Cuban capital. Both banks have subordinated themselves to US orders and taken part in the application of extraterritorial laws.
As a result of this same policy, aimed at disrupting Cuban cooperation with international organizations, the Center for Environmental Research in the province of Cienfuegos (CEAC) was unable to buy the AXIOVISION software used to process microscopic images since it has US components. The CEAC had previously acquired a Carl Zeiss Axiovent-40 microscope (which relies on the AXIOVISION software to process the microscope’s images) through the IAEA financed project RLA 7/014 “Designing and Implementing Systems for Early Warning and Evaluation of the Toxicity of Harmful Algal Blooms in the Caribbean Region.”
The US Department of the Treasury froze 8,375 dollars earmarked to pay a foreign supplier of computer equipment and supplies contracted by the Cuban company EMED in the framework of a UNDP Local Human Development Project in the Cuban province of Pinar del Rio.
CHAPTER II: ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE BLOCKADE ON THE MOST VULNERABLE SOCIAL SECTORS
2.1 Adverse effects in the areas of health care and food
The public health and food sectors continue to be priority targets of the blockade policy.
PUBLIC HEALTH
From May 2010 to April 2011, negative impacts on the public health care sector are estimated at 15 million dollars, primarily due to costs incurred by having to buy from far-off markets and the increased import prices for disposable material and medical instruments, as well as medicines, reagents, spare parts and equipment.
The damage caused to Cuba by the blockade in this sector is particularly cruel, not only because of its economic effects, but also because of the suffering caused to patients and their relatives by not having the ideal medicine to treat a disease.
Although the Torricelli Law (1992) and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (2000) authorize the export of medicine, and medical accessories and devises to Cuba, significant restrictions are maintained. The sale of health products do not benefit from the license exemption (or automatic license) provision established for agricultural products by the US Department of Commerce. A specific license is needed, which is granted on a case by case basis, with a limited period of validity.
The products that can be authorized must meet control and classification requirements established by the Export Administration Regulations at the Department of Commerce, which establishes Commerce Control Lists, in accordance with regulations set according to national security concerns or those related to the biotechnology industry.
The granting of licenses is conditional to the United States being able to monitor and verify, through in situ inspections or other means, that the product is being used for the purpose it was authorized. As a policy, the sale of state-of-the-art technology is not authorized in this sector.
So far, imports made directly from the United States have been insignificant and are mainly of disposable material.
Among the many examples that demonstrate damages caused to the health care sector are the following:
The Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery has planned some 400 surgeries for 2011. Of them, 70% are aorta-coronary revascularizations, which will use from 24 to 30 mammary clips per patient. If Cuba could buy this product from the US Horizon firm, its price would be from $ 0.30 to 0.40. However, buying the product from third countries raises its cost to $ 0.78.
Likewise, after the St. Jude Medical company that sells mitral and aortic valves closed its operations in Cuba, the Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery was forced to acquire these supplies in third countries at a cost of 1,200 dollars each. The same happens with the acquisition of heart stabilizers, which are used to carry out surgeries without cardiac arrest. Cuba is denied the right to buy these items from Medtronic Inc.
The Frank Pais Hospital, specialized in orthopedics and traumatology, has been forced to find other markets to buy the components needed as part of maintenance given every three years to their Hyperbaric Chamber, bought from the Mexican company REMISA, after the US AMRON company, with headquarters in California, refused to sell them these parts. Likewise, the US KAPACK company refuses to supply the Frank Pais Hospital, the only hospital with a bone tissue bank in Cuba, with high-density polyethylene bags used to package processed tissue, causing countless difficulties.
The Cuban National Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases has not been able to buy a Gamma Radiation Detector from the US company Perkin Elmers or spare parts to repair a Gamma Radiation Detector bought in 1974; therefore, these must be purchased on the European market at a considerable cost increase. This equipment is used to process hormonal analysis results used to diagnose endocrine and metabolic diseases.
The Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology, in its Oncopediatrics services, has not been able to use extendable prostheses to replace bone parts as part of tumor surgery. As a result, it has not been able to use conservative or functional treatments in children and adolescents who suffer from malignant bone tumors, because these treatments are sold by US companies. The institute’s Radiotherapy Department has also faced serious difficulties in acquiring parts and accessories after the US company Best Medical bought the Canadian company MDS Nordion.
As stated in previous reports, Cuba is still unable to purchase new cytostatics produced by the United States such as liposomal adriamycin and nitrosoureas, used to treat encephalic tumors.
The same dilemma occurs with the newest generation of antibiotics, particularly oral, for children under one year of age. Sometimes substitutes are acquired, but often not in a timely manner or in the required amounts, limiting the use of complete treatments over the necessary time period and at the precise moment.
The Institute of Oncology is deprived of a flow cytometer used to study cancerous cells, because when the US company Becton Dickinson found out that the final destination was Cuba, it refused to sell its flow cytometer to an intermediary company.
The Cuban National Kidney Transplant Program requires high-quality, anti-Histocompatibility (HLA) serological reagents to carry out its research on HLA from a solid scientific and ethical base. For years the program bought this product from the One Lamda company through third countries. The tightening of the blockade has negatively affected the purchase of these reagents, which could either completely halt the National Transplant Program or lower its scientific standard.
FOOD
The blockade has a negative impact on the food sector and is directly detrimental to the Cuban population given the great importance and potential vulnerability of this sector.
From March 2010 to March 2011, damages are estimated at nearly 120,300,000 dollars.
The need to buy food in far-off markets results in increased costs for insurance and transportation and is often carried out under unfavorable conditions. These are some of the elements that characterize the effects caused by the blockade in this sector.
Despite being able to import agricultural and food products from the United States, the ALIMPORT Company faces several difficulties caused by the onerous and highly regulated conditions under which these purchases have been made beginning in 2001, in addition to negative economic effects and the loss of logistical opportunities in other markets. Its impact is estimated at 90,800,000 dollars. This amount is equal to having bought one of the following products based on the average price in 2010: 325,000 tons of wheat, 380,000 tons of corn or 125,000 tons of chicken.
A complex licensing mechanism is still in place for travel to Cuba by US businesspersons, contract signing, transportation and derivative payments of these transactions. In addition to these determinants, OFAC has the power to cancel these licenses without previous warning and without providing a detailed explanation.
The following examples illustrate this situation:
The CORACAN S.A. company, a producer and marketer of instant food products, lost 162,100 dollars in 2010. This company has faced serious difficulties in acquiring artificial low-calorie sweeteners —especially the neotame sweetener, the sweetening capacity of which ranges from 8,000 to 13,000 times that of sugar— because US companies monopolize the production and commercialization of these products.
The Comercial Caribex company has been unable to sell lobster tails to the US market where these are sold tax free; while in the European, Canadian and Chinese markets they are taxed 4.3%, 5% and 10% respectively, which has resulted in a loss of 573,100 dollars.
For the Cuban rum industry, the lack of access to the US market, especially for the leading Havana Club brand, equates to sale losses of 2.6 million cases of rum, which, based on the average cost of Havana Club International in 2010, represents an economic loss of 106,132,000 dollars.
The CUBAEXPORT company was negatively affected after two European clients mistakenly paid 270,000 dollars for more than 140 tons of honey in US currency rather than in Euros and Swiss francs. The money was frozen and has not been returned. The company has only been able to collect a part of the money owed.
The QUIMIMPORT company is unable to purchase agricultural fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides from the US market because of the blockade. During the period analyzed, it was unable to import Diamonic Phosphate (DAP) directly from the United States, due to the supplier’s compliance with the blockade, and had to import it from other markets for an additional cost of 197,600 dollars.
2.2 Negative impact on academic, scientific, cultural and sport exchanges
The blockade has had and continues to have a strong impact on the education, culture and sports sectors.
The US government’s so-called relaxation of regulations on travel to Cuba from the US for some groups of US citizens, such as students, academics, journalists or members of religious organizations, is not really aimed at promoting friendship between the two peoples, but rather at promoting its political and ideological objectives regarding Cuba.
EDUCATION
Despite efforts by the Cuban government to guarantee education for everybody, the effects of the blockade translate into daily shortages that affect the learning process, research and scientific work of students and teachers in general.
As a result of this policy, Cuba still has no access to the US market to buy school supplies and materials essential to repair and maintain school infrastructure. Therefore, it is forced to buy these products in far-off markets spending an additional 881,400 dollars.
With this money, Cuba could buy a variety of educational tools to teach natural sciences, and home economics and shop in all primary, special and secondary schools. It could also buy more than 15,000 globes needed in primary schools and cover the cost of PVC sheets used to produce a year’s worth of word formers used in primary and special schools for teaching reading and writing.
Special education is very important for the Cuban population. In 2008, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) approved the program “Expanding classroom inclusion in the Cuban school model in Santiago de Cuba” at a cost of 100,000 Euros. This program was specifically aimed at improving educational inclusion for primary and secondary school students with special needs (physical, visual, hearing and mental disabilities), directly benefiting 310 children and young people with disabilities.
However, the blockade has made it extremely difficult to acquire tactile screens, interactive whiteboards, intelligent keyboards, printers, typewriters and tape recorders, among other means indispensable to impart top quality and successful special education.
From April 2010 to March 2011, the Higher Education sector has suffered losses of 5,703,443 dollars, including adverse effects in production and services, lack of access to US technology, and higher import prices for market relocation.
In the University of Ciego de Avila, the work of bio-plant labs has been seriously affected due to the refusal of the LKB-Pharmacy or BioRad firm to provide maintenance to a protein purification chromatograph and a refrigerated centrifuge, among other pieces of equipment, resulting in damages of 94,716 dollars.
CULTURE
During the period being analyzed, the impact on the cultural sector represents 14,913,300 dollars, the majority of which represents lost revenue from the exportation of goods and services, relocation to other markets, additional transportation and insurance costs, and adverse monetary-financial effects.
The following are only some examples:
On November 3, 2010, the US Department of the Treasury informed the Center for Cuban Studies in New York that it would not renew its license to carry out cultural exchange programs with Cuban institutions.
The ARTEX S.A. company which sells records and copyrights, and offers recording services has been adversely affected and is prohibited from selling albums during concerts by Cuban artists in the United States, representing a conservative estimated loss of 150,000 dollars.
The National Council of Cultural Heritage cannot access software related to new mapping and digital information technologies such as Google Earth, Mapinfo and Arcview; nor can it purchase didactic, audiovisual and bibliographic material, or accessories to setup specialized art workshops and labs.
The Cuban Institute of Cinematographic Arts and Industry (ICAIC) has been negatively impacted due to the impossibility of working with US companies dedicated to advertising in airlines, and the tourism, art, culture and sports sectors. The impact is estimated at 220,000 dollars.
As a result of the blockade, the Cuban cinematographic industry has not been able to buy materials, spare parts and pieces of equipment, such as film stock and chemical products for the ICAIC Cinematographic Lab from the United States; as well as accessories for cinematographic equipment, licenses, patents and brands, such as THX, Dolby, MAC, Avid, Toons and Scenarist, for audiovisual postproduction processes.
SPORTS
The Cuban sports sector has not escaped the effects of the blockade. Its impact is conservatively estimated at some 1,546,565 dollars.
Nearly 300 US runners could not participate in the MARABANA/MARACUBA 2010 project because they were denied visas to travel to Cuba, resulting in losses of nearly 102,000 dollars.
On February 17, 2011, the US Department of the Treasury refused to issue a license to the Sarasota Yacht Club to organize the Sarasota-Havana Yacht Race in Cuba.
Cuba cannot buy Louisville, Wilson, Xbat and Rawlings brand sports equipment because they are produced by US companies. The use of many of these articles is compulsory in accordance with Official Regulations of International Federations; therefore, Cuba has had to purchase them from third countries for an additional cost of 450,000 dollars.
For the fourth consecutive year, Cuba is unable to purchase high-pressure Liquid Chromatography equipment, which is indispensable for anti-doping control. Despite efforts made by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the US government prohibits the Agilent Technologies company from selling this equipment to Cuba.
CHAPTER 3. ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE FOREIGN SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY
3.1 Adverse effects on foreign trade
Cuba is a small developing country with an economy that depends greatly on foreign trade, technology, capital, credits and investments, and international cooperation for its development.
The greatest impact continues to stem from the lack of access to the US market both to acquire merchandise and to commercialize Cuban traditional export products such as sugar, rum, cigars and nickel. However the greatest impact comes from the impossibility of exporting services, given the numerous restrictions imposed by the blockade, including those related to travel by US citizens to Cuba, communications, and air and maritime transportation.
The impact on the tobacco industry is estimated at 79,900,000 dollars. In terms of cigars and raw tobacco, estimates are calculated assuming that Cuba still had a quota in the US market. On this basis, the sector lost 65,600,000 dollars in cigar exports and 5,500,000 dollars in raw tobacco exports to the US market.
Before the blockade was implemented, Cuba did not export machine-made tobacco products. Currently, it has made incursions into this market with the MINIS, CLUB and PURITOS brands, which have obtained promising results. The US market has a demand of nearly 5.5 billion units. If Cuba had had access to 1% of this market, it would have made 7.1 million dollars.
Taking into account Cuba’s current sugar production and export capacities for the world market and the differential between the invoiced price and the price of Contract No. 16 of New York, applicable to US imports under the preferential scheme, the CUBAZUCAR company lost more than 37,000,000 dollars over this period.
The prohibition on selling Cuban sugar on the New York Stock Market is an argument used by traders to lower the value of Cuban sugar compared to that produced in other countries in our region. They argue that if there were a lack of final purchasers, they would not be able to use the stock market as an additional or emergency exit; therefore, they would have to offer Cuban sugar at discount prices to incentivize final purchasers.
The entities belonging to the Grupo de Administracion Empresarial (GAE) reported total losses of 264,640,000 dollars, with the highest losses experienced by entities working in tourism, given the absence of US tourists.
The TECNOIMPORT company lost a total of 42,000,000 dollars, which can be broken-down as follows: 3,060,000 dollars to transport more than 3,000 containers from Asian and European ports because it cannot access the US market; more than 23,000,000 dollars in additional expenses for not being able to use dollars in its transactions; and 14,500,000 dollars for having to use intermediaries.
The CIMEX S.A. Corporation lost 63,976,200 dollars. The CIMEX Corporation’s Department of Purchases, Storage and Distribution made great expenditures mainly associated with the additional costs of purchasing goods from intermediaries representing 22,700,000 dollars, and the increase of inventory volumes, currency exchange, transportation and storage costs for a total of 9,730,000 dollars.
3.2 Adverse effects on foreign investment
This assessment was principally based on the World Investment Report, published by the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the 2009 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) report entitled, Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean from May 2010; both reports analyze data from 2009.
To estimate the investment flow that Cuba would receive if the blockade did not exist, an analysis was made of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows that a selected group of countries receive from the United States as well as the percentage that such flows represent in the total flows received by these countries in 2009.
The group of countries was selected based on having economies comparable to the Cuban economy and similar characteristics regarding geographic and sociocultural conditions, with special emphasis on the final use of the flows received.
The following chart shows the total foreign investment flow and those from the United States received by the selected countries in 2009.
Countries Total FDI Flow
(in millions of dollars)
FDI Flow from the United States (in millions of dollars)
Percentage of United States FDI Flows in total FDI Flow
Costa Rica 1,322.6 747 56.5
Honduras 550.4 281 51
Dominican Republic 2,158.1 589 27.3
Colombia 7,201.2 2 ,314 32.1
Nicaragua 434.2 60 13.8
El Salvador 430.6 74 17.2
Source: Based on the Foreign Direct Investment Regional Overview in Latin America and the Caribbean report published by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2009.
The analysis of this data shows that Cuba could have received FDI flows from the United States equivalent to 600,500,000 dollars on average in absolute terms.
Even when foreign investment in Cuba is conceived as a complement to national efforts and within the principle of high selectivity of programs of national interest with significant economic and social impact, the blockade entails serious consequences, including the following:
• No access to state-of-the-art technology owned by US companies.
• No access to the US market for Cuban joint venture exports.
• No access to funding from US banks to carry out Foreign Direct Investment Projects in the country.
• The application of sanctions and pressure against foreign companies by the US government, which causes a deterrent effect among potential investors and prevents the establishment of joint ventures in Cuba.
Among the sectors most affected by the restrictions imposed by the blockade on foreign investment are the oil, tourism and biotechnology industries. For example, the SHERRIT INTERNACIONAL CORP., which has investments in Cuba in the oil and mining sectors, reports lowered share value since it is unable to access US market and capital. From June 1995, as part of the application of the Helms Burton Act, the three main SHERRIT companies that traded with Cuba (Moa Nickel S.A., the Cobalt Refinery Co. Inc and the International Cobalt Co of SHERRIT) were placed on the US black list for being significant foreign investors in Cuba.
Tourism continues to be one of the main driving forces of the Cuban economy. At the close of 2010, Cuba had received 2,531,745 visitors, 4.2% more than in 2009. As such, this sector needs to continue developing by providing opportunities for foreign investors in hotel and extra-hotel infrastructure, and in developing golf courses and other activities.
US companies that work in the hotel sector and that have significant investments in the Caribbean region cannot access these opportunities in Cuba due to the prohibitions of the blockade. Nor can Cuba benefit from US hotel chains in the Caribbean, almost all of which are among the top ten hotel chains in the world as is the case of SHERATON, HILTON, MARRIOT and HOLIDAY INN.
In the food and agriculture sector, if the blockade’s restrictions did not exist, there could be joint ventures between the US and Cuba to develop the production industry for beans, soya, beef and pork, among other food products. In addition, these joint ventures could work in logistic activities such as harvesting, best practices, post harvest treatment and distribution, which would guarantee the substitution of some of the imports from the United States, the revitalization of the food sector and the generation of new jobs, among other advantages.
On the other hand, the Cuban biotechnology industry, which meets the standards of a developed country, cannot establish strategic alliances with leading US companies in the sector to carry out research and development projects.
3.3 Adverse effects on the financial and banking sectors
During the period analyzed, the US government has stepped up its policy of hostility, persecution and harassment targeted at the Cuban financial and banking sectors, and foreign financial and banking institutions with the objective to limit operations to and from Cuban banks —despite the fact that most of the transfers are made in Euros or other currencies—, arguing that Cuba is included in the “list of countries that sponsor terrorism.”
Although it is not always possible to quantify the economic impact, to site just one example, one of our commercial banks had 481,000 Euros worth of payments rejected, not to mention rejections in other currencies.
The main adverse effects caused to the banking-financial system are the following:
• Increased financial costs due to having to resort to “double forex” to meet creditors’ demands in dollars. This results in losses due to fluctuations in exchange rates or from payments made to other foreign institutions to cover currency fluctuation risk, which is very costly.
• Accounts closed in a significant number of foreign banks.
• Refusal by correspondent banks to confirm or notify regarding letters of credit.
• Refusal by some foreign banks to make payments from Cuban banking entities.
• Forced to maintain minimum balances in Cuban accounts abroad because of the risk of seizure.
During the period being analyzed, more than 20 banks decided to close their accounts with Cuban banks, which were used by Cuban banking institutions to make payments.
The following are some concrete examples of the impact on Cuban banks during 2010 and 2011:
• A European bank returned funds to a Cuban banking institution, citing that it did not accept payments from Cuba according to European laws. Another European bank rejected a payment made through a Cuban Bank for a letter of credit confirmation, citing it did not accept payments from Cuba. Another European institution refused to notify about a letter of credit related to credit offered by another European bank, without citing concrete reasons.
• A Latin American bank sent a message regarding two payments made with letters of credit issued by a Cuban bank, informing that its Risk Committee decided to stop working with Cuba for an indefinite period and until further notice, beginning in May 2010.
• Through the initiative of a European bank, the account and correspondent relationship that a Cuban banking institution had with the abovementioned European bank were closed. Similar situations had already occurred with other Cuban banks. The rupture with this correspondent bank closed the only operational entry door for family remittances sent from that European country, increasing the cost of every payment order since they had to be reimbursed through third banks.
• A Cuban bank had to substitute a Latin American insurance company that was involved in an important investment project in Cuba, when more than 40% of the shares of the insurance company were bought by a US company.
3.4 Section 211 of the 1999 US Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act and new aggressions regarding patents and trademarks.
During 2010 and so far in 2011, the risk situation and potential impact continue from an incident that took place in 2009 when several plaintiffs brought cases against the Cuban State to try to appropriate Cuban trademarks and patents, as a means of compensation, using arguments based on the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act passed in 2002 and extended until 2014.
These attempts to appropriate these intangible assets linked to intellectual property are not new. A well-known case is that of the BACARDI company, which tried to seize the HAVANA CLUB rum trademark, based on a law that it had promoted earlier in the United States, Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 regarding the registration, renewal or observance in the United States of trademarks, brewery names and commercial names related to assets nationalized in Cuba.
This section prevents Cuban owners or their successors-in-interest and foreign companies with interests in Cuba from being recognized and enjoying their rights in the United States regarding trademarks or commercial names registered and protected in Cuba.
In February 2011, nine years had passed since the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ratified that Section 211 violates national treatment and more-favoured nation obligations, contracted by the United States within the framework of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. At the time, the DSB also requested that the US Government modify this measure, whose incompatibility was established, to make it conform to the obligations set out in the TRIPS Agreement.
This pseudo-legal saga involving the Havana Club trademark in the United States continued in the Washington Court of Appeals which ruled (two judges in favour and one against) that the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Department of the Treasury acted correctly when it refused to renew the registration of the Havana Club trademark in the United States for a Cuban-French joint venture.
In contrast, the Supreme Court of Spain confirmed, in February 2011, that the property of the ‘Havana Club’ Cuban rum trademark belongs to the joint venture established between the French company Pernod Ricard and the Cuban company Corporación Cuba Ron.
This was the third time that the Spanish court has rejected Bacardi’s attempts to question the rights over the trademark of this company that has its headquarters in Cuba. Bacardi first began its process to be recognized as owner of the trademark in Spain and to cancel the trademark registered on behalf of its competitor Havana Club Holding in the courts of Madrid in 1999.
The Cuban ownership of the trademark was first upheld by the Court of First Instance (lower court) in 2005, and later in an appeal before the Provincial Court of Madrid in 2007.
Attempts to appropriate the trademarks and patents of Cuban companies compromise international treaties regarding trademarks and patents and have a serious impact on international trade.
In accordance with International Law, the United States has the responsibility to ensure that their legal and administrative laws, regulations and procedures comply with their obligations under WTO Agreements and international treaties on trademarks and patents to which they are a State Party.
CHAPTER IV. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE BLOCKADE ON OTHER SECTORS OF THE CUBAN ECONOMY.
The sugar industry reported losses of 62,100,500 dollars between April 2010 and March 2011.
Due to the impossibility to import the necessary supplies for sugar mills, 13 mills began operations behind schedule for the 2010-2011 sugarcane harvest. As a consequence, raw sugar production fell short by 168,100 tons, which represented 57,700,000 dollars in losses. Having no access to the US market, Cuba is forced to import supplies from far-off producers at higher prices and with longer delivery times.
The Cuban tourism industry reported severe losses as a consequence of the US blockade, which amounted to 1,713,000,000 dollars.
On the basis of studies conducted by US tourism industry companies, it is estimated that the Cuban tourism industry lost 1,668,000,000 dollars in 2010, as a consequence of travel restrictions.
If the blockade did not exist, the Grupo Empresarial de Marinas y Nauticas, Marlin, would have made more than 10,000,000 dollars. With its more than 650 mooring berths, at 75% capacity this company could have approximately 179,000 days of ships docking per year (of an average length of 40 feet). Profits from docking fees alone would amount to 5,000,000 dollars, plus fees from amenities such as water and electricity, security and purser services, fuel, store sales and yacht repair services, among others.
The HAVANATUR office in Canada must pay 1.6% more than other tour operators in that country for credit card transactions, which results in losses of more than 1,000,000 dollars a year. Likewise, from April 2010 to March 2011 the Grupo ITH, a tourism industry supplier, suffered losses of 26,700,000 dollars due to the higher cost of supplies purchased from third countries, excessive interest rates for commercial credits, fluctuation of exchange rates, hard currency purchases and higher shipping costs.
The Civil Aeronautics Sector continues to suffer the consequences of the US blockade. From May 2010 to April 2011 it is estimated that the sector lost 276,506,681 dollars, among other reasons due to the use of less efficient aircrafts, additional expenses for renting planes, the high cost of fuel, spare parts and other supplies, and the inability to meet passenger demand. In this context, and as a consequence of the decision of Shell España to terminate its contract with Cubana de Aviación, the airline had to find a new supplier of fuel abroad, which resulted in losses of around 271,840 dollars.
Also in 2010, Cubana de Aviación attempted to resume online ticket sales, which proved extremely difficult due to the impossibility of using US dollars for transactions and the banks' reluctance to use other currencies, to the detriment of the airline’s positioning on the international market.
The lack of access to the US market to purchase spare parts for fuel supply trucks that operate in the Havana and Varadero airports, and jet fuel and spare parts for Cuban aircrafts, along with the inability to access plane fuelling stations, resulted in an additional 5,700,000 dollars in expenses in 2010.
If Cuban commercial flights to and from Canada could use US airspace, flight time and pollution would be reduced and Cubana de Aviación would save more than 2,026,000 dollars.
In June 2010, Argentina-based Sky Chefs, which had been providing catering services to Cubana de Aviación since 2001, abruptly suspended its services following instructions from its head office in Frankfurt, Germany, in connection with the Helms-Burton Act. In search of a new supplier, Cubana de Aviación turned to Gate Gourmet, another European catering company, but was turned down because the head office of Gate Gourment in Zurich, Switzerland did not approve the contract.
The Information Sciences and Communications sector has been severely damaged by the blockade. In the period in question, losses in this sector are estimated at 7,396,394 dollars.
On October 6, 2010, Twitter acknowledged full responsibility for having blocked text messages sent to this platform from cell phones in Cuba. Likewise, in April 2010, it was announced that Cuban users could not access certain Twitter features because they were in a blacklisted country.
In October 2010, a team from the Las Villas Central University that won an Honourable Mention at the International Collegiate Programming Contest of the Association of Computing Machines (ICPC-ACM) held in China and sponsored by US company IBM was deprived of the prize due to blockade regulations.
The EcoSol Electric Division, which trades in technology for renewable energy sources, has also suffered from the effects of the blockade. Most of these products are controlled by the Eaton Group, a US company that produces single-phase and three-phase systems used in distribution networks. Unable to benefit from direct purchases from the supplier, the EcoSol Electric Division has been forced to turn to third countries for spare parts and training services at higher prices.
Beginning in February 2011, the financial firm Synivere stopped payments for cell phone roaming services owed to the Cuban telecommunications company ETECSA, claiming that its bank could not conduct any transactions with Cuba. As a result, Cuba has been unable to collect 2,600,000 dollars for these services and has endured additional difficulties.
Damages caused to the Light Industry sector because of the blockade implemented by the US government against Cuba amounted to 9,760,200 dollars and 655,900 Cuban pesos.
Production in this industry has a direct impact on the provision of essential products and people’s quality of life.
The 1,494,900 dollars lost by Union Textil could have been used to produce 88,200 care packages for newborns, which represents 52% of the 2011 production plan.
If Union Poligrafica had been able to use the 1,649,700 dollars lost as a result of the blockade, it could have produced 9,200,000 high-quality notebooks, which represent approximately 21% of the national demand for notebooks for the 2010/2011 school year.
As a result of the blockade, Cuban soap manufacturer Union Suchel lost 1,368,600 dollars that could have financed the production of 872.8 tons of bath soap of the Liz brand, equivalent to 6,900,000 bars of soap.
In the period in question, Empresa de Pinturas VITRAL could have produced whitewash and enamel for 24,000 seventy-square-meter houses, if it had the 2,285,800 dollars it lost because of the blockade.
The transportation sector has not escaped the direct and extraterritorial effects of the US blockade, with losses totalling 244,583,000 dollars a year, mainly in the land and sea transportation sectors because of travel restrictions on US citizens, merchant and cruise ships to Cuba, and merchant and cruise ships from other countries that touch Cuban ports.
Cuba’s classification as a “risk country” due to the US blockade brought about a 40 to 50% increase in prices, and an increase in interest rates, which resulted in additional expenses of 39,000,000 dollars in purchases in this sector.
As ships that dock in Cuba run the risk of being blacklisted, profits from hiring Cuban personnel on foreign ships, even those from third countries, continues to suffer damages. In addition, Cuba cannot benefit from cruise ship taxes for passengers, crew members, and operational costs.
The blockade hinders the hiring of qualified Cuban personnel in the maritime sector since these professionals cannot be hired to work on yachts, cruise ships or merchant ships; as a result, Cuba loses 10,188,000 dollars a year.
The main cruise line companies in the world, CARNIVAL. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, STAR CRUISES, NCL (Norwegian Cruise Line), MSC and COSTA, operate with US capital. Although all of them sail the Caribbean Sea, they cannot hire Cubans to staff the crews because the cruise ships call at ports in the United States and Puerto Rico. Third-country owned cruise lines, such as BARCLAY, CGA-CGM, Hapag Lloyds cannot hire Cubans either because they also call at US ports.
Among losses in the exportation of goods and services for the marine repair industry is the cancellation of a 1,188,000 CUC (Cuban Convertible Currency) contract for the repair of the FOUR MOON Ship at a Cuban shipyard.
The impact of the US blockade on the Iron and Steel Industry was greater than last year with losses totalling 106,226,500 dollars as a result of increased import costs (47,225,058 dollars), the inability to access US technology (18,184,000 dollars), additional inventory expenses (13,668,000 dollars) and the increased cost of transportation (8,918,939 dollars).
The Grupo industrial de bienes de capital GBK, which produces metal structures, facilities, containers, furniture and equipment for a number of industries, suffered losses of 835,440 dollars, a sum which could have been used to purchase 710 tons of steel sheets to produce numerous industrial and household items, or 178,000 semi-finished grinding wheels to produce abrasives, a fundamental raw material used in the iron and steel industry.
The Grupo de Bienes de Consumo (GBC) invested 27,775,980 dollars to manufacture kb-4 laminar flows, stationary bicycles, wheelchairs, autoclaves, fume extraction hoods, fans, stoves, household refrigerators, molds, press tools, restaurant steam tables, and sanitary and construction fittings. If it would have had access to raw materials and other manufacturing components sold on the US market, the same quantity of products would have cost a total of 22,307,380 dollars, and the company would have saved 5,468,600 dollars. With the money saved, the company could have manufactured twice as many household refrigerators, that is, 60,000 instead of 30,000, for use by an equal number of households.
Commercial prohibitions and restrictions stemming from the blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States have continued to severely undermine the home repair and construction programs undertaken in the country. Between April 2010 and March 2011, it is estimated that damages in the sector ascended to 22,547,634 dollars.
On the basis of the average per-unit cost of different household repair and construction activities, it is estimated that at least one of the following could not be undertaken as a result of this:
• The repair of 16,400 homes, at an average per-unit cost of 1,375 dollars.
• Maintenance work for 27,330 homes, at an average per-unit cost of 825 dollars.
• The construction of 1,132 new type-1 homes, at an average per-unit cost of 7,200 dollars.
• The construction of 1,466 new type-3 homes, at an average per-unit cost of 5,049 dollars.
Cuba’s Basic Industry sector also suffered considerable damages, calculated at over 82,600,000 dollars, mainly due to the prohibition on exporting nickel to the United States and purchasing supplies and technology from US manufacturers.
The natural market for Cuban nickel is the United States, a country that in 2010 imported some 144,000 tons of raw nickel, chiefly from Canada, Russia, Norway and Australia. Keeping in mind the United States’ geographical proximity, Cuba could have exported more than 30,000 tons of nickel to this country each year. At the average international market price for 2010, these nickel exports represent more than 654,000,000 dollars.
Similarly, the United States continues to be one of the largest cobalt consumers in the world. In 2010 it imported some 11,000 tons of this metal from far-off producers, such as Norway, Russia and China, among other countries. Because of its geographical proximity, Cuba would be an ideal cobalt supplier that could sell the United States some 2,500 tons a year. At the average international price for 2010, this represents more than 98,500,000 dollars in Cobalt sales that are currently being denied to the island as a result of the blockade.
In the oil sector, the delivery of two balancers scheduled for June 2010 at a cost of 272,449.48 Euros to the Ñico Lopez and Hermanos Díaz oil refineries (in Havana and Santiago de Cuba, respectively) was cancelled after it was determined that several components of these units were manufactured in the United States. This forced Cuba to look for alternative suppliers, delaying the delivery some nine months and causing considerable economic damages.
The US government has also pressured oil companies that offer goods or services to Cuba or that have declared an interest in negotiating oil industry contracts with the country. This pressure has included sanctions against executives and their relatives, and has caused many companies interested in doing business with Cuba to leave the country, causing considerable economic damages.
The aforementioned clearly demonstrates that the United States’ blockade against Cuba has a direct and diverse impact on all of the country’s economic sectors, and that it is one of the main obstacles Cuba faces in its economic and social development.
CHAPTER V. OPPOSITION TO THE GENOCIDAL POLICY OF THE BLOCKADE AGAINST CUBA.
5.1 Unprecedented opposition within the United States.
Opposition to the blockade has also been significantly on the rise within the United States itself.
It is impossible to outline in a few pages the countless declarations made and articles written by important individuals in the US from civil society, the military, legislative bodies, the press, NGOs and academic institutions who, over the past year, have publicly recognized the failure of the blockade, have supported bills aimed at lifting restrictions on travel by US citizens to Cuba, and/or have spoken in favor of normalizing bilateral relations or lifting the blockade.
What follows is a brief summary of the most significant and representative actions and statements against the blockade undertaken and made in the United States:
• On April 20, 2010, the US magazine National Journal published the following statement by Aaron Saunders, Communications Director for Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA): "In the past it cost us very little strategically, but here is a case where it could cost us a great deal."
• On April 21, 2010, Representative John Tanner (D-TN), Chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Media and Arbitration of the House of Representatives of the US Congress, said in a public address on Cuba that the blockade had failed and had closed the doors of the Cuban market to US workers, farmers and businesses. He added that more needed to be done and that it was time to expand US economic interests.
• On June 25, 2010, former US President Jimmy Carter, during an interview for Radio Catalunya, requested that President Barack Obama lift the blockade because it was counterproductive. "I don’t approve of sanctions against the people from any country."
• On July 9, 2010, an online survey conducted by the USA Today newspaper, which included 1,475 participants, showed that 94% were in favour of lifting the US blockade against Cuba.
• On July 13, 2010, an article by Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) was published by The Washington Post, in which he stated that putting an end to the blockade on Cuba would help the Cuban people rather than the government.
• On July 14, 2010, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), during a speech at a plenary session of the Senate on the draft bill to permit travel to Cuba, noted that the blockade had failed to accomplish its goal. “It has not worked at all,” he said. The senator added that it was immoral to use food and medicine as weapons and noted that restricting the rights of US people in order to punish the Cuban government was inconceivable. "That is what we have been doing over the last 50 years," he added, and he also questioned the authority of the US government to decide where US citizens may or may not travel to.
• On July 28, 2010, the Tampa Tribune published statements by Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL), in which she insisted that the US blockade was "a 50-year experiment that has not worked" and added that the "the blockade and travel restrictions have given the Cuban government an excuse to blame the United States for its failures..."
• On August 4, 2010, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), during a speech at a session of the Committee on Agriculture on the US Agricultural Commercial Policy and the Agriculture Bill, referred to the relaxation of travel and trade restrictions in the case of Cuba as an “extraordinary opportunity" and added that it was time to change the approach with Cuba, given that in almost 50 years the blockade has not succeeded.
• On August 19, 2010, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) noted in a communiqué that progress needed to be made towards lifting the blockade, which she described as a failed policy. Lee said that it was time to "eliminate the counterproductive and unnecessary travel restrictions for Cuba," as well as trade restrictions, and she reiterated her support of Bill H.R.4645.
• On September 2, 2010, the Amnesty International NGO released a report entitled Cuba: The US blockade against Cuba: Its impact on economic and social rights, which concluded that the sanctions imposed against Cuba by the United State affect the Cuban people’s access to medicine and medical technology, endangering the health of millions of people. Amnesty International urged President Obama to lift the blockade and to repeal the sanctions imposed against Cuba by virtue of the Trading with the Enemy Act. Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan said that the blockade was an “immoral and failed policy."
• On September 9, 2010, Amnesty International released a communiqué criticizing the renewal by President Obama of the sanctions against Cuba by virtue of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The communiqué describes this policy as "ineffectual and damaging" and calls on Obama to lift an blockade that “has a devastating effect on the daily lives of the Cuban people.”
• On September 13, 2010, at an online debate forum organized by the Council of Foreign Relations´ website (AFR.org), Head of the Programme for Latin America Julia Sweig described the US policy towards Cuba as "obsolete" and added that the Obama Administration was making slow progress in this issue. She said that she believed that the beginning of a new era in US-Cuba relations would be very favorable.
• In September 2010, Bloomberg announced that cell phone company Nokia had requested that President Obama lift the blockade in order to be able to market its products in Cuba. AT&T and Verizon Communications also requested that telephone calls to and from Cuba be made easier.
• On October 9, 2010, during its 29th Conference, the Cuban section of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) issued a declaration condemning the US blockade and advocating for the elimination of US unilateral measures against Cuba.
• Between November 3 and 17, 2010, 1,000 Americans participated in a survey conducted by Cuba Standard. The results showed that 47% of the people surveyed wanted the blockade on Cuba lifted, as well as restrictions on trade and travels by US citizens to Cuba; 22% were against the blockade, and 31% were unsure.
• From November 9 to 13, 2010, the yearly Special Joint Assembly Meeting of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the World Church Service and the Latin American Council of Churches was held in New Orleans. A resolution was passed at the meeting advocating a change in US-Cuba relations, the elimination of restrictions on travel by US citizens to Cuba and the lifting of the blockade, as well as a review of the sentences given to the five Cuban antiterrorist fighters.
• On December 2, 2010, Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) said, according to a report by the EFE news agency, that it was “absurd” that the US Congress maintained restrictions on Cuba that respond to a Cold War mentality.
• On March 30, 2011, former President Jimmy Carter in a television interview during his second visit to Cuba said: "In the future, I hope that trade and travel between the two countries will be unrestricted and that the US blockade will be completed eliminated. The blockade oppresses the Cuban people. It not only affects the Cuban government, but also the Cuban people, who are ultimately the most severely hit by it. I think US-Cuba relations should change.”
Carter added, “Most Cubans want relations with the United States to be normal, and most Americans also want relations with Cuba to be normal…I think that some progress has been made in the last few years, because Miami and other Cuban-American communities, including young people in these communities, want the blockade lifted and want to have the opportunity to normally travel in both directions: from the Unites States to Cuba and from Cuba to the Unites States. This is a change.”
• On May 10, 2011, US Reverend Jesse Jackson, a former presidential candidate and a renowned human rights activist, in an interview with Prensa Latina in Doha, Qatar said, “If we [the US government] have been able to hold talks, reach an understanding and establish relations with China, a country with an ideology different from ours, not doing the same with Cuba is an outdated idea.” He added, “We are neighbors and therefore we need each other. We can develop ties that would bring mutual benefits…I await the day when the wall of the blockade that keeps Cuba and the Unites States apart falls.”
5.2 International Opposition.
The international community’s growing and overwhelming opposition to the US blockade against Cuba is significant.
Innumerable voices have been raised around the world to call for an end of this inhumane policy. In the period covered by this report, numerous pronouncements in favor of the immediate and unconditional lifting of the blockade have been made.
The following are especially noteworthy:
• The 17th Ordinary Session of the Heads of State or Government of the African Union, held in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea from June 30 to July 1, 2011, adopted a special declaration that calls on “the United States government to put an end to the long-standing and unjustifiable economic and commercial blockade imposed against the Republic of Cuba and to allow it to enjoy legitimate perspectives for its sustainable development. Once again we make an appeal to the US government to put an end to its sanctions against Cuba.”
• The Third Cuba-CARICOM Ministerial Meeting held in Havana from September 17 to 18, 2010, adopted a final declaration which called for the immediate and unconditional lifting of the blockade against the Cuban people.
• During the general debate of the 65th period of sessions of the UN General Assembly, held in September 2010, the high-level representatives of 33 countries openly criticized the blockade and called for an end to this policy. The repudiation of the US blockade and the demand to lift it was one of the five topics most debated by the member States, clearly demonstrating that this issue continues to be of great concern for the international community.
• During the session held in the headquarters of the European Parliament in Brussels on October 11, 2010, a report presented by Brazilian Chair of the World Peace Council Socorro Gomez states that “Cuba, socialist and revolutionary, continues to endure isolation, blockade and pressures, something which demands the unconditional solidarity of the World Peace Council in the struggle against the blockade and the liberation of their five heroes, imprisoned in the United States.”
• On October 19, 2010, the Jamaican House of Commons unanimously adopted a new resolution in support of Cuba’s UN General Assembly resolution against the blockade, stating, among other things, that “the blockade is a violation of International Law and runs contrary to the aims and principles of the United Nations Charter and of the norms governing international trade and freedom of navigation. It is a violation of a sovereign state’s right to peace, development and security and, in its essence and aims, continues to be an act of unilateral aggression and a permanent threat to the stability of a UN member country.”
• On October 22, 2010, the State Duma of the Russian Federation’s Federal Assembly adopted a resolution which approved the Call on the Parliaments of UN Member States and International Parliaments by the Duma, to eliminate the economic, commercial and financial blockade against the Republic of Cuba. The document states that, in its refusal to abolish the economic blockade imposed on Cuba, “the United States of America continues to violate the norms and principles that govern normal relations between States, ignoring the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the members of the international community expressed in the pertinent UN General Assembly resolutions.” The Duma once again urged parliaments around the world to “call on the United States of America to lift the economic, commercial and financial blockade on the Republic of Cuba without delay.”
• On October 25, 2010, the Panama National Assembly adopted Resolution No. 19, which, again, “regretted the continued existence of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on the Republic of Cuba” and expressed its support for the “demand voiced by the international community, calling for an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade that the United States has imposed against the Republic of Cuba for 48 years.”
• On October 26, 2010 and for the 19th consecutive time, the United Nations General Assembly –the most democratic and representative body of the international community– unequivocally and almost unanimously pronounced itself against the US blockade, voicing the opinion of the overwhelming majority of member states and securing a new, historical victory for the Cuban people, for justice and for truth, when it approved, with 187 votes in favor, 2 against and 3 abstentions, the resolution entitled Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. Thirty-eight countries, including Cuba, along with several international, regional and sub-regional organizations such as the Group of 77 and China, the Non-Aligned Movement, CARICOM, the African Union, MERCOSUR, and the European Union, participated in the ensuing general debate and discussions of details regarding the vote.
• On October 29, 2010, the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of El Salvador approved a motion, supported by the majority of the members of parliament from the various political parties, which celebrates and expresses its support for the decision of the UN General Assembly to demand that the United States of America put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade against the Republic of Cuba. The motion also voices concerns over the enactment and implementation of laws and regulations such as the Helms-Burton Act, whose extraterritorial effects undermine the sovereignty of other States.
• The 41st Ministerial Meeting of the Latin American Energy Organization (OLADE) held in Managua, Nicaragua on October 29, 2010, unanimously approved, for the first time, a statement condemning the US blockade against Cuba, thus joining the voices around the world that are calling for its immediate lifting.
• In November 2010, the Mexican Senate adopted a Memorandum of Agreement which “urges the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to make the vote of the international community against the blockade on Cuba effective in Mexico through concrete measures aimed at guaranteeing the lifting of the blockade.”
• The Heads of State and Government of Latin American countries who convened in Mar del Plata, Argentina, on December 3 and 4, 2010, for the 20th Latin American Summit, once again approved a special communiqué on the necessity to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba and to eliminate the Helms-Burton Act. This communiqué reiterates “the most vigorous condemnation of the implementation of laws and measures that run contrary to International Law, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and urges the government of the United States of America to put an end to its application.” Similarly, it calls on “the government of the United States of America to comply with the resolution approved in 19 consecutive General Assemblies of the United Nations to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba.”
• On December 8, 2010, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) once again condemned the economic, financial and commercial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba in a declaration made by the CARICOM chair, Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding, on the occasion of the 38th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. The declaration calls the blockade policy unjust and identifies it as the main obstacle faced by Cuba in terms of its development and efforts to overcome global challenges, such as the current economic crisis.
• On December 23, 2010, the Gambian National Assembly unanimously approved a resolution which calls on the United Nations, the United States government and the international community to lift the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by Washington against Cuba. Among other statements, the resolution affirms that the blockade constitutes a violation of international law; represents a flagrant, massive and systematic violation of the rights of the Cuban people; and runs contrary to the principle and purposes of the United Nations Charter. The document also describes the United States policy against Cuba as a unilateral act of aggression whose extraterritoriality violates the sovereign rights of many other countries.
• On March 22, 2011, representatives of the 28 member states of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic System (SELA) gathered in Caracas, condemned the unjust blockade that Washington maintains against Cuba. SELA Permanent Secretary José Rivera Banuet reiterated the organization’s condemnation of this policy and stated that relations between the United States and countries in Latin America and the Caribbean could improve substantially if Obama decided to put an end to the blockade, an issue that has been addressed during debates by members of SELA and the international community.
• During its 16th Ministerial Conference (Inter-Summit), held in Bali, Indonesia, from May 25 to 27, 2011, the Non-Aligned Movement once again called on the United States to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed against Cuba. It stated that in addition to being unilateral and contrary to the UN Charter, International Law and the good neighbor principle, the US blockade causes the Cuban people great material and economic damages. NAM representatives once again demanded that the United States abide by the resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly, which call for the lifting of the blockade, and expressed their profound concern over the expansion of its extraterritorial scope.
CONCLUSIONS:
Despite the intense and growing demands by the international community for the US government to change its policy towards Cuba, lift the blockade and normalize bilateral relations with Cuba, the Obama administration has maintained the blockade policy intact.
The blockade violates International Law, runs contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and constitutes a contravention of a sovereign state’s right to peace, development and security. In its essence and objectives, the blockade represents an act of unilateral aggression and a permanent threat against the stability of a nation. The blockade constitutes a massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire people. It also violates the constitutional rights of US citizens by denying them the freedom to travel to Cuba, and encroaches on the sovereign rights of many other states because of its extraterritorial nature.
As of December 2010, the direct economic damages to the Cuban people caused by the implementation of the United States’ economic, commercial and financial blockade, based on current prices and very conservative estimates, amounts to more than 104 billion dollars.
Taking into account the extreme devaluation of the dollar against the price of gold on the international financial market during 2010 and this continual trend, the damages caused to the Cuban economy would exceed 975 billion dollars.
The blockade continues to be an absurd, illegal and morally unjustifiable policy which has not succeeded and never will succeed in undermining the Cuban people’s patriotic decision to defend its sovereignty, independence and right to self-determination. It has only succeeded in subjecting the Cuban population to shortages and needless suffering, in restricting and hindering the development of the country and in seriously damaging the Cuban economy. It is the greatest obstacle Cuba faces in its economic development.
The president of the United States has sufficient prerogatives to significantly modify the blockade against Cuba, and to do so without the intervention of Congress.
The blockade is a unilateral and immoral policy which is condemned both within the United States and by the international community. The United States must lift it immediately and unconditionally.
Once again, Cuba is confident that it can count on the support of the international community in its legitimate demand for an end of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba.
July 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: 0
CHAPTER I. Continued policy of economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba. 0
1.1 Principal measures to continue the blockade adopted by the US government. 0
1.2 Extraterritorial application of the blockade. 0
1.3 Adverse effects of the blockade on cooperation with multilateral organizations 0
CHAPTER II: ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE BLOCKADE ON THE MOST VULNERABLE SOCIAL SECTORS 0
2.1 Adverse effects in the areas of health care and food 0
2.2 Negative impact on academic, scientific, cultural and sport exchanges 0
CHAPTER 3. ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE FOREIGN SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY 0
3.1 Adverse effects on foreign trade 0
3.2 Adverse effects on foreign investment 0
3.3 Adverse effects on the financial and banking sectors 0
3.4 Section 211 of the 1999 US Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act and new aggressions regarding patents and trademarks. 0
CHAPTER IV. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE BLOCKADE ON OTHER SECTORS OF THE CUBAN ECONOMY. 0
CHAPTER V. OPPOSITION TO THE GENOCIDAL POLICY OF THE BLOCKADE AGAINST CUBA. 0
5.1 Unprecedented opposition within the United States. 0
5.2 International Opposition. 0
CONCLUSIONS: 0
INTRODUCTION:
The economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States government against Cuba has been maintained and further tightened despite the growing and categorical demand by the international community —in particular the United Nations General Assembly— for its elimination.
While the current US government has taken some positive steps, they are insufficient and extremely limited in scope. Furthermore, they are not intended to alter the complex structure of laws, regulations and provisions that make up the blockade policy against Cuba.
The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Export Administration Act of 1979, the Torricelli Act of 1992, the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, and export administration regulations are all currently in force. These laws are part of the legal framework of a policy defined as an act of genocide by virtue of the Geneva Convention of 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and as an act of economic warfare as outlined in the Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War adopted by the London Naval Conference of 1909.
As a consequence of the rigorous and fierce implementation of those statutes and other regulatory provisions, Cuba continues to be prohibited from freely exporting and importing goods and services to or from the United States, and it cannot use the US dollar in its international financial transactions or hold accounts in that currency in third country banks. Nor is Cuba permitted access to credit from US banks or any of their branch offices in third countries, or from international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the Inter-American Development Bank.
Despite the official rhetoric intended to persuade international public opinion into believing that the current US government has implemented a policy of positive changes, Cuba remains unable to trade with any subsidiaries of US companies based in third countries; and businesspersons from third countries interested in investing in Cuba are systematically harassed and blacklisted.
One of the distinctive characteristics of the current US administration’s implementation of the blockade has been an upsurge in the persecution of Cuba’s international financial transactions, including those that stem from multilateral organizations that cooperate with Cuba.
Currently, the leaders of the most vicious anti-Cuban groups in control of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs are preparing to deal a new blow as part of their incessant obsession with the island aimed at preventing and hindering the presence in Cuba of foreign companies interested in oil exploration in Cuba’s exclusive economic zone.
One example of how the actions against Cuba recognize no borders or sovereignties is the request made to the US Secretary of State by Florida Senator Bill Nelson. On May 19, Senator Nelson called on the US government to intervene before the Spanish government to force Spanish oil company Repsol to stop oil exploration works it had scheduled to carry out in Cuba. In addition, a top-level political delegation headed by US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar went to Madrid to pursue this same objective.
As stated in this report, the direct economic damages caused to the Cuban people by the implementation of the economic, commercial and financial blockade by the United States against Cuba up until December of 2010, at current prices and based on very conservative estimates, amounts to more than 104 billion dollars.
Taking into account the extreme devaluation of the dollar against the price of gold on the international financial market during 2010 and this continual trend, the damages caused to the Cuban economy would exceed 975 billion dollars.
CHAPTER I. Continued policy of economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba.
The United States’ economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba continues to be fully applied. The legal basis behind this policy remains intact and the political, administrative and repressive mechanisms aimed at a more efficient implementation of the blockade, particularly the persecution and harassment of Cuba’s commercial and financial transactions around the world have been intensified.
Exports of every sort of goods and services by Cuba to the United States continue to be banned, as have exports of virtually any goods or services from the United States to Cuba, with very few exceptions and under very strict regulations. Merchant ships of any country touching Cuban ports are still forbidden to call on any US port for a period of 180 days.
No company affiliated to or sharing interests with any US company is allowed to trade with any Cuban company, regardless of the relations that may exist between Cuba and the country where the company is based, the laws in force in its country of origin or the norms of international law. Those companies based in third countries that have commercial relations with Cuba are subject to persecution, threats and sanctions by US government authorities no matter where in the world they might be and regardless of their origin, patrimony and whether or not they have ties with the United States.
The persecution of Cuba’s financial transactions with third countries has intensified regardless of the relations these countries may have with Cuba, the currency used in those transactions or the applicable banking norms in the countries involved.
As a rule of law, the US government prevents its citizens from travelling to Cuba, with very few exceptions and under very strict regulations.
The US government continues to publicly assert its alleged need to preserve the blockade as “a tool to apply pressure” and maintains its conditions regarding internal order in Cuba as a prerequisite to modify its policy towards the island. Evidently, it has no intention whatsoever to bring about a change in its policy towards the Island or abide by the resolutions that have been repeatedly adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that call for an end to this inhumane policy.
The measures announced by the US government on January 14, 2011 —including lifting the travel ban to Cuba for US citizens for academic, educational, cultural and religious purposes; authorizing remittances in limited quantities by US citizens to Cuban citizens; and authorizing US international airports to request permission to operate direct charter flights to Cuba under certain conditions— are insufficient and limited in scope.
Essentially these measures are not indicative of the United States government’s will to substantially change its blockade policy, but rather reflect the increasing opposition to the blockade by broad sectors of the US public.
By implementing the measures announced on January 14, the US government was aiming to portray a positive image of its failed policy towards Cuba at a time when domestic and international opposition to that policy was overwhelming. However, such measures are fundamentally limited to reinstating some provisions that were in effect in the 1990s under the Clinton administration and were discontinued by George W. Bush beginning in 2003. The constitutional right of US citizens to travel freely continues to be an illusion in the 21st century. They continue to be the only citizens in the world who are forbidden to travel to Cuba.
Upon announcing these measures, the US government very clearly stated that the blockade will remain intact and that it intends to use these measures to strengthen the mechanisms of subversion and interference in Cuba’s internal affairs.
1.1 Principal measures to continue the blockade adopted by the US government.
The US government has maintained the entire framework of laws and administrative provisions that are part of the blockade’s legal basis and regulations. The basics of that policy have not been modified. This is seen in the laws and regulations in force listed below:
Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA): Enacted as a war measure in 1917 to restrict trade with nations considered hostile, the implementation of this law was subsequently expanded to enable the president to regulate property transaction involving any US national in a foreign country whether in times of war or “any other period of national emergency declared by the president.” The first regulations of the blockade against Cuba of 1962 are based on this law.
On September 2, 2010, President Obama announced the expansion of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which, in practice, is supposed to ensure the continuation of the blockade against Cuba. A memorandum, drafted by the president to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, confirms that “the continuation of these measures regarding Cuba is convenient to US national interests.”
Foreign Assistance Act: Enacted in September 1961 by the US Congress, this law authorizes the president of that country to impose and maintain “a total blockade on trade between the United States and Cuba.” In addition, it forbids the granting of any kind of assistance to the Cuban government.
The Export Administration Act (EAA): Adopted in 1979 as a result of a review made on export regulations, this law vested the president with the authority to monitor all exports and reexports of goods and technology, particularly those which might be considered as detrimental to US national security.
Cuban Democracy Act (CDA): This law, better known as the Torricelli Act, was passed by President Bush Senior in October 1992. With this law, the US government tightened the economic measures against Cuba and provided a regulatory framework for the blockade’s extraterritoriality. This law forbids US subsidiaries in third countries to carry out any transaction with Cuba or Cuban nationals and prevents the entry of third country vessels into US territory for a period of 180 days after they have touched Cuban ports, among other restrictions.
Cuban Freedom and Democratic Solidarity Act: Known as the Helms-Burton Act, this law was adopted by President Clinton in March of 1996 with the primary objective to hinder and discourage foreign investments in Cuba and to internationalize the blockade against the Island. It codified the provisions of the blockade, limited the prerogatives of the president to suspend the implementation of this policy and expanded its extraterritoriality. This law prevented the entry into the US of foreign company executives (and their relatives) who invest in “confiscated” properties in Cuba and provided for the possibility to file lawsuits against them in US Courts.
Export Administration Regulations (EAR): These laws come under the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Exports Administration Act, and regulate exceptions to the Exports Administration Act or those which are authorized through licenses issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the US Department of Commerce.
The scope of the aforementioned laws and regulations reveal that no other blockade has been as brutal and encompassing as that applied by the United States against Cuba.
1.2 Extraterritorial application of the blockade.
After more than two years of a Democrat administration that hoped to impress the world with its talk of change and renovation, the US policy against Cuba has been characterized by an intensification of the extraterritoriality of the blockade. The US government has intensified sanctions and the extraterritorial persecution of citizens, institutions and companies in third countries who establish or plan to establish economic, commercial, financial, scientific or technical ties with Cuba; thus assuming the right to make decisions regarding issues that are the sovereignty of other States.
Likewise, the dominant role played by the United States in the global economy and in strategic alliances, mergers and mega-mergers of international companies has continued to have a negative impact on Cuba and facilitated the intensification of the negative effects of the blockade, while further reducing the international economic sphere in which Cuba is allowed to operate.
The extraterritoriality of this policy is based on the following guidelines:
• US subsidiaries in third countries are forbidden to have any kind of transaction with companies based in Cuba.
• Companies from third countries are forbidden to export products of Cuban origin or products that have a component of Cuban origin to the US.
• Companies from third countries are forbidden to sell goods or services to Cuba, whose technology contains more than 10% of US components, even though their owners may be nationals of those countries.
• Vessels carrying products to or from Cuba, regardless of their country of registration, are forbidden to enter US ports.
• Third country banks are forbidden to open accounts in US dollars for Cuban juridical or natural persons or to carry out financial transactions in said currency with Cuban entities or persons.
• Third country businesspersons are penalized for making investments or carrying out business with Cuba. If they do, they are denied visas to enter the US which can be extended to include their family members, and are subject to legal action before US courts in the event that operations with Cuba are related to properties associated with claims filed by US citizens (including those who were born in Cuba and acquired citizenship at a later date).
From March 2010 to April 2011 there were several multimillion dollar fines levied against US and foreign banking institutions for having conducted operations with Cuba. These types of sanctions have a detrimental effect and, in the case of banks, entail breaking relations with Cuba and/or forcing Cuban transactions to be made under more precarious conditions.
The persecution and harassment of individuals and companies in third countries has reached absurd levels, confirming the extraterritorial nature of the blockade.
In 2010, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Department of the Treasury fined four entities for a total of 502,721,671 dollars. The largest fine (500 million) was levied against the ABN Amro Bank in Holland, for having carried out unauthorized financial transactions in which Cuba or Cuban nationals had interests.
On July 15, 2010 OFAC announced that the United Nations Federal Credit Union was fined 500,000 dollars for having carried out unauthorized financial transactions in which Cuba had interests.
On July 27, 2010, the IMECO Import Group at the Cuban Ministry of Construction signed a contract with Panamanian supplier VIBAS Import Export S.A. to buy four Komatsu graders through the TIESA Company, Komatsu distributors in Panama. Two of these graders could not be supplied due to the Komatsu America Corporation (KAC) factory’s refusal to meet the order. Komatsu America claimed that it had evidence that two other graders had previously been sent to Cuba. The failed delivery gravely affected the timeframe for executing the Ferronickel project. The cost of each grader is 235,000 dollars.
On August 16, 2010 the British bank Barclays reached an agreement with US Federal District Attorneys to pay 298,000,000 dollars for having altered financial records between 1995 and 2006 to hide financial transactions of Cuba, Libya, Sudan and Myanmar with US banks worth more than 500,000,000 dollars. According to the prosecutors, these transactions were in violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Of the transactions carried out, 61 correspond to Cuba for a total estimated at 6,711,798 dollars.
In September 2010, OFAC requested that the Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba (MEDICC) NGO provide all information on its travel and links to Cuba for an investigation it was carrying out. At the same time, members of the Global Links Organization, which provides technical medical assistance to developing countries, received a warning from OFAC that it had overstayed its visit in Cuba.
In the last quarter of 2010 the VITRAL Paint Company had to stop production in three factories, resulting in the loss of 893,800 liters of emulsion, oil and enamel paints for a value of 2,285,800 dollars as a result of the cancelation by supplier Mexico Petroplastic of the delivery of 120 tones of rutile titanic dioxide used to produce paints for January-February 2011.
In March 2011 it was learned that a duty free store for diplomats in Spain, citing the US blockade, refused to sell cigarettes to a Cuban diplomat. The employee said that they were prohibited from selling products made by Phillip Morris to Cuban citizens, including diplomats, based on regulations set out by OFAC.
On March 21, 2011 the Portuguese company DigitalSign told the Cuban company Neuronic that it could not grant it a digital certificate since these validations were provided by VeriSign, a US company, and citing the US blockade.
On April 7, 2011 OFAC levied a fine of 22,500 dollars against the New York METLIFE insurance company for having issued a check directly to a Cuban national.
On April 17, 2011 it was learned that the US government requested explanations from the Spanish bank BBVA regarding the fact that it had declared in its annual report that it had an employee in Cuba. In addition, the US Securities and Exchange Commission requested information regarding the extent and nature of its “past, present and future” activities in Cuba and demanded that it report any contact with Cuban officials. As revealed by Wikileaks, the US government has decided to especially focus on Spanish companies with the objective of breaking their ties with Cuba, by carrying out constant harassment of these companies.
On April 25 2011 the PayPal eBay company that carries out online bank transferences canceled the delivery of funds belonging to the Cuba Support Group in Ireland that were destined for the Cuban account set up to gather donations for Haiti after the devastating earthquake that ravaged this country. PayPal offered the following statement: “PayPal would be in violation, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, if we facilitated transactions where funds benefit Cuba…and we would be subject to sanctions as outlined by OFAC.”
The Spanish company FLINT DIVISION SHEETFED informed about the need to substitute two products used in the Cuban poligraphic industry since they contained a higher percentage of raw materials of US origin than that allowed by US legislation to export to Cuba.
A European firm canceled its delivery of backhoe loaders, model R984C, destined for the Cuban nickel industry since they use a US CUMMINS motor prohibited for sale to Cuba by the manufacturers. This forced a change of excavators that had been standardized in the industry and could lead to losses not yet quantified in the areas of performance, inventory and administration time.
A loss of 14,844,128 dollars came about when Cuba could no longer buy sulfuric acid from a Mexican copper company for use in the nickel industry. In 2010, Cuba imported 410,491.632 metric tons with an average shipping cost of 73.66 dollars per ton, while the price for shipping one ton of the same product from Mexico would have been 37.50 dollars.
The European supplier of spare compressor parts for the Cobalt and Leaching Plant at the Comandante René Ramos Latour Nickel Company informed that it could no longer supply the parts since the manufacturer of the merchandise is from the United States and is not allowed to do business with Cuba. So far, this has resulted in the loss of 26,300 dollars.
As a result of the acquisition of the CENTAC company (a manufacturer of compressors for the oil industry) with US capital, the cost of buying spare parts for the existing machinery in Cuba has skyrocketed. While the cost of a compressor is around 60,000 dollars, the pieces to build one of them have been offered to Cuba by third countries at a cost of 191,000 dollars, three times the cost of the machine itself.
1.3 Adverse effects of the blockade on cooperation with multilateral organizations
Under the Obama administration, the adverse effects of the blockade as part of the US’s policy against Cuba have increased in the framework of international multilateral organizations.
In January 2011, the US government seized 4,207,000 dollars of funding from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria earmarked for the implementation of cooperation projects with Cuba to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.
This deliberate act to prevent the implementation of three projects whose significant impact on the affected population is well known has absolutely no legitimacy or foundations other than to continue to harden the policy of blockade in one of the most vulnerable sectors for the Cuban government and people.
Cuba has condemned this measure as an illegal action that also has aims to seriously hinder international cooperation provided by the United Nations System through its agencies, funds and programs. This action is even more significant given that it affects funds earmarked for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis training, prevention and patient assistance, especially to buy medicine, antiretrovirals and food. The Cuban government and the international community have prioritized their greatest efforts towards eradicating these pandemic diseases as part of fulfilling one of the Millennium Development Goals.
As a result of Cuba’s formal complaint, the US Department of the Treasury decided to issue a general license in May 2011 to release these funds that are set to expire on June 30, 2015. Nevertheless, even with this decision, the US government is —arbitrarily and selectively— allocating itself the right to control resources destined for Cuba via multilateral cooperation.
In another incident, Cuba could not purchase an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer at a cost of 193,000 dollars that was required as part of a project implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “Strengthening Official Control of Chemical Residues and Contaminants in Fishery Products, CUB/5/018.” This piece of equipment is used in the fishery industry to verify and guarantee the quality and innocuousness of all fishing products and for the control of chemical residuals and contaminants in aquaculture products.
As an alternative, the country has had to contract out large volumes of analytical services to foreign companies, which has caused significant difficulties especially related to high costs (70,000 dollars so far), sending samples and the possible risks of losing the confidentiality of the results.
Similarly, from late 2006, Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse, the holders of the bank accounts of the majority of the international organizations with headquarters in Geneva, have refused to directly receive bank transfers from Cuban institutions such as the Cuban Office for Industrial Property (OCPI) and other law firms with headquarters in Cuba, for payments to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) according to international treaties on registering and renewing Cuban patents and trademarks, or patents and trademarks with Cuban capital. Both banks have subordinated themselves to US orders and taken part in the application of extraterritorial laws.
As a result of this same policy, aimed at disrupting Cuban cooperation with international organizations, the Center for Environmental Research in the province of Cienfuegos (CEAC) was unable to buy the AXIOVISION software used to process microscopic images since it has US components. The CEAC had previously acquired a Carl Zeiss Axiovent-40 microscope (which relies on the AXIOVISION software to process the microscope’s images) through the IAEA financed project RLA 7/014 “Designing and Implementing Systems for Early Warning and Evaluation of the Toxicity of Harmful Algal Blooms in the Caribbean Region.”
The US Department of the Treasury froze 8,375 dollars earmarked to pay a foreign supplier of computer equipment and supplies contracted by the Cuban company EMED in the framework of a UNDP Local Human Development Project in the Cuban province of Pinar del Rio.
CHAPTER II: ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE BLOCKADE ON THE MOST VULNERABLE SOCIAL SECTORS
2.1 Adverse effects in the areas of health care and food
The public health and food sectors continue to be priority targets of the blockade policy.
PUBLIC HEALTH
From May 2010 to April 2011, negative impacts on the public health care sector are estimated at 15 million dollars, primarily due to costs incurred by having to buy from far-off markets and the increased import prices for disposable material and medical instruments, as well as medicines, reagents, spare parts and equipment.
The damage caused to Cuba by the blockade in this sector is particularly cruel, not only because of its economic effects, but also because of the suffering caused to patients and their relatives by not having the ideal medicine to treat a disease.
Although the Torricelli Law (1992) and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (2000) authorize the export of medicine, and medical accessories and devises to Cuba, significant restrictions are maintained. The sale of health products do not benefit from the license exemption (or automatic license) provision established for agricultural products by the US Department of Commerce. A specific license is needed, which is granted on a case by case basis, with a limited period of validity.
The products that can be authorized must meet control and classification requirements established by the Export Administration Regulations at the Department of Commerce, which establishes Commerce Control Lists, in accordance with regulations set according to national security concerns or those related to the biotechnology industry.
The granting of licenses is conditional to the United States being able to monitor and verify, through in situ inspections or other means, that the product is being used for the purpose it was authorized. As a policy, the sale of state-of-the-art technology is not authorized in this sector.
So far, imports made directly from the United States have been insignificant and are mainly of disposable material.
Among the many examples that demonstrate damages caused to the health care sector are the following:
The Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery has planned some 400 surgeries for 2011. Of them, 70% are aorta-coronary revascularizations, which will use from 24 to 30 mammary clips per patient. If Cuba could buy this product from the US Horizon firm, its price would be from $ 0.30 to 0.40. However, buying the product from third countries raises its cost to $ 0.78.
Likewise, after the St. Jude Medical company that sells mitral and aortic valves closed its operations in Cuba, the Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery was forced to acquire these supplies in third countries at a cost of 1,200 dollars each. The same happens with the acquisition of heart stabilizers, which are used to carry out surgeries without cardiac arrest. Cuba is denied the right to buy these items from Medtronic Inc.
The Frank Pais Hospital, specialized in orthopedics and traumatology, has been forced to find other markets to buy the components needed as part of maintenance given every three years to their Hyperbaric Chamber, bought from the Mexican company REMISA, after the US AMRON company, with headquarters in California, refused to sell them these parts. Likewise, the US KAPACK company refuses to supply the Frank Pais Hospital, the only hospital with a bone tissue bank in Cuba, with high-density polyethylene bags used to package processed tissue, causing countless difficulties.
The Cuban National Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases has not been able to buy a Gamma Radiation Detector from the US company Perkin Elmers or spare parts to repair a Gamma Radiation Detector bought in 1974; therefore, these must be purchased on the European market at a considerable cost increase. This equipment is used to process hormonal analysis results used to diagnose endocrine and metabolic diseases.
The Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology, in its Oncopediatrics services, has not been able to use extendable prostheses to replace bone parts as part of tumor surgery. As a result, it has not been able to use conservative or functional treatments in children and adolescents who suffer from malignant bone tumors, because these treatments are sold by US companies. The institute’s Radiotherapy Department has also faced serious difficulties in acquiring parts and accessories after the US company Best Medical bought the Canadian company MDS Nordion.
As stated in previous reports, Cuba is still unable to purchase new cytostatics produced by the United States such as liposomal adriamycin and nitrosoureas, used to treat encephalic tumors.
The same dilemma occurs with the newest generation of antibiotics, particularly oral, for children under one year of age. Sometimes substitutes are acquired, but often not in a timely manner or in the required amounts, limiting the use of complete treatments over the necessary time period and at the precise moment.
The Institute of Oncology is deprived of a flow cytometer used to study cancerous cells, because when the US company Becton Dickinson found out that the final destination was Cuba, it refused to sell its flow cytometer to an intermediary company.
The Cuban National Kidney Transplant Program requires high-quality, anti-Histocompatibility (HLA) serological reagents to carry out its research on HLA from a solid scientific and ethical base. For years the program bought this product from the One Lamda company through third countries. The tightening of the blockade has negatively affected the purchase of these reagents, which could either completely halt the National Transplant Program or lower its scientific standard.
FOOD
The blockade has a negative impact on the food sector and is directly detrimental to the Cuban population given the great importance and potential vulnerability of this sector.
From March 2010 to March 2011, damages are estimated at nearly 120,300,000 dollars.
The need to buy food in far-off markets results in increased costs for insurance and transportation and is often carried out under unfavorable conditions. These are some of the elements that characterize the effects caused by the blockade in this sector.
Despite being able to import agricultural and food products from the United States, the ALIMPORT Company faces several difficulties caused by the onerous and highly regulated conditions under which these purchases have been made beginning in 2001, in addition to negative economic effects and the loss of logistical opportunities in other markets. Its impact is estimated at 90,800,000 dollars. This amount is equal to having bought one of the following products based on the average price in 2010: 325,000 tons of wheat, 380,000 tons of corn or 125,000 tons of chicken.
A complex licensing mechanism is still in place for travel to Cuba by US businesspersons, contract signing, transportation and derivative payments of these transactions. In addition to these determinants, OFAC has the power to cancel these licenses without previous warning and without providing a detailed explanation.
The following examples illustrate this situation:
The CORACAN S.A. company, a producer and marketer of instant food products, lost 162,100 dollars in 2010. This company has faced serious difficulties in acquiring artificial low-calorie sweeteners —especially the neotame sweetener, the sweetening capacity of which ranges from 8,000 to 13,000 times that of sugar— because US companies monopolize the production and commercialization of these products.
The Comercial Caribex company has been unable to sell lobster tails to the US market where these are sold tax free; while in the European, Canadian and Chinese markets they are taxed 4.3%, 5% and 10% respectively, which has resulted in a loss of 573,100 dollars.
For the Cuban rum industry, the lack of access to the US market, especially for the leading Havana Club brand, equates to sale losses of 2.6 million cases of rum, which, based on the average cost of Havana Club International in 2010, represents an economic loss of 106,132,000 dollars.
The CUBAEXPORT company was negatively affected after two European clients mistakenly paid 270,000 dollars for more than 140 tons of honey in US currency rather than in Euros and Swiss francs. The money was frozen and has not been returned. The company has only been able to collect a part of the money owed.
The QUIMIMPORT company is unable to purchase agricultural fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides from the US market because of the blockade. During the period analyzed, it was unable to import Diamonic Phosphate (DAP) directly from the United States, due to the supplier’s compliance with the blockade, and had to import it from other markets for an additional cost of 197,600 dollars.
2.2 Negative impact on academic, scientific, cultural and sport exchanges
The blockade has had and continues to have a strong impact on the education, culture and sports sectors.
The US government’s so-called relaxation of regulations on travel to Cuba from the US for some groups of US citizens, such as students, academics, journalists or members of religious organizations, is not really aimed at promoting friendship between the two peoples, but rather at promoting its political and ideological objectives regarding Cuba.
EDUCATION
Despite efforts by the Cuban government to guarantee education for everybody, the effects of the blockade translate into daily shortages that affect the learning process, research and scientific work of students and teachers in general.
As a result of this policy, Cuba still has no access to the US market to buy school supplies and materials essential to repair and maintain school infrastructure. Therefore, it is forced to buy these products in far-off markets spending an additional 881,400 dollars.
With this money, Cuba could buy a variety of educational tools to teach natural sciences, and home economics and shop in all primary, special and secondary schools. It could also buy more than 15,000 globes needed in primary schools and cover the cost of PVC sheets used to produce a year’s worth of word formers used in primary and special schools for teaching reading and writing.
Special education is very important for the Cuban population. In 2008, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) approved the program “Expanding classroom inclusion in the Cuban school model in Santiago de Cuba” at a cost of 100,000 Euros. This program was specifically aimed at improving educational inclusion for primary and secondary school students with special needs (physical, visual, hearing and mental disabilities), directly benefiting 310 children and young people with disabilities.
However, the blockade has made it extremely difficult to acquire tactile screens, interactive whiteboards, intelligent keyboards, printers, typewriters and tape recorders, among other means indispensable to impart top quality and successful special education.
From April 2010 to March 2011, the Higher Education sector has suffered losses of 5,703,443 dollars, including adverse effects in production and services, lack of access to US technology, and higher import prices for market relocation.
In the University of Ciego de Avila, the work of bio-plant labs has been seriously affected due to the refusal of the LKB-Pharmacy or BioRad firm to provide maintenance to a protein purification chromatograph and a refrigerated centrifuge, among other pieces of equipment, resulting in damages of 94,716 dollars.
CULTURE
During the period being analyzed, the impact on the cultural sector represents 14,913,300 dollars, the majority of which represents lost revenue from the exportation of goods and services, relocation to other markets, additional transportation and insurance costs, and adverse monetary-financial effects.
The following are only some examples:
On November 3, 2010, the US Department of the Treasury informed the Center for Cuban Studies in New York that it would not renew its license to carry out cultural exchange programs with Cuban institutions.
The ARTEX S.A. company which sells records and copyrights, and offers recording services has been adversely affected and is prohibited from selling albums during concerts by Cuban artists in the United States, representing a conservative estimated loss of 150,000 dollars.
The National Council of Cultural Heritage cannot access software related to new mapping and digital information technologies such as Google Earth, Mapinfo and Arcview; nor can it purchase didactic, audiovisual and bibliographic material, or accessories to setup specialized art workshops and labs.
The Cuban Institute of Cinematographic Arts and Industry (ICAIC) has been negatively impacted due to the impossibility of working with US companies dedicated to advertising in airlines, and the tourism, art, culture and sports sectors. The impact is estimated at 220,000 dollars.
As a result of the blockade, the Cuban cinematographic industry has not been able to buy materials, spare parts and pieces of equipment, such as film stock and chemical products for the ICAIC Cinematographic Lab from the United States; as well as accessories for cinematographic equipment, licenses, patents and brands, such as THX, Dolby, MAC, Avid, Toons and Scenarist, for audiovisual postproduction processes.
SPORTS
The Cuban sports sector has not escaped the effects of the blockade. Its impact is conservatively estimated at some 1,546,565 dollars.
Nearly 300 US runners could not participate in the MARABANA/MARACUBA 2010 project because they were denied visas to travel to Cuba, resulting in losses of nearly 102,000 dollars.
On February 17, 2011, the US Department of the Treasury refused to issue a license to the Sarasota Yacht Club to organize the Sarasota-Havana Yacht Race in Cuba.
Cuba cannot buy Louisville, Wilson, Xbat and Rawlings brand sports equipment because they are produced by US companies. The use of many of these articles is compulsory in accordance with Official Regulations of International Federations; therefore, Cuba has had to purchase them from third countries for an additional cost of 450,000 dollars.
For the fourth consecutive year, Cuba is unable to purchase high-pressure Liquid Chromatography equipment, which is indispensable for anti-doping control. Despite efforts made by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the US government prohibits the Agilent Technologies company from selling this equipment to Cuba.
CHAPTER 3. ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE FOREIGN SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY
3.1 Adverse effects on foreign trade
Cuba is a small developing country with an economy that depends greatly on foreign trade, technology, capital, credits and investments, and international cooperation for its development.
The greatest impact continues to stem from the lack of access to the US market both to acquire merchandise and to commercialize Cuban traditional export products such as sugar, rum, cigars and nickel. However the greatest impact comes from the impossibility of exporting services, given the numerous restrictions imposed by the blockade, including those related to travel by US citizens to Cuba, communications, and air and maritime transportation.
The impact on the tobacco industry is estimated at 79,900,000 dollars. In terms of cigars and raw tobacco, estimates are calculated assuming that Cuba still had a quota in the US market. On this basis, the sector lost 65,600,000 dollars in cigar exports and 5,500,000 dollars in raw tobacco exports to the US market.
Before the blockade was implemented, Cuba did not export machine-made tobacco products. Currently, it has made incursions into this market with the MINIS, CLUB and PURITOS brands, which have obtained promising results. The US market has a demand of nearly 5.5 billion units. If Cuba had had access to 1% of this market, it would have made 7.1 million dollars.
Taking into account Cuba’s current sugar production and export capacities for the world market and the differential between the invoiced price and the price of Contract No. 16 of New York, applicable to US imports under the preferential scheme, the CUBAZUCAR company lost more than 37,000,000 dollars over this period.
The prohibition on selling Cuban sugar on the New York Stock Market is an argument used by traders to lower the value of Cuban sugar compared to that produced in other countries in our region. They argue that if there were a lack of final purchasers, they would not be able to use the stock market as an additional or emergency exit; therefore, they would have to offer Cuban sugar at discount prices to incentivize final purchasers.
The entities belonging to the Grupo de Administracion Empresarial (GAE) reported total losses of 264,640,000 dollars, with the highest losses experienced by entities working in tourism, given the absence of US tourists.
The TECNOIMPORT company lost a total of 42,000,000 dollars, which can be broken-down as follows: 3,060,000 dollars to transport more than 3,000 containers from Asian and European ports because it cannot access the US market; more than 23,000,000 dollars in additional expenses for not being able to use dollars in its transactions; and 14,500,000 dollars for having to use intermediaries.
The CIMEX S.A. Corporation lost 63,976,200 dollars. The CIMEX Corporation’s Department of Purchases, Storage and Distribution made great expenditures mainly associated with the additional costs of purchasing goods from intermediaries representing 22,700,000 dollars, and the increase of inventory volumes, currency exchange, transportation and storage costs for a total of 9,730,000 dollars.
3.2 Adverse effects on foreign investment
This assessment was principally based on the World Investment Report, published by the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the 2009 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) report entitled, Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean from May 2010; both reports analyze data from 2009.
To estimate the investment flow that Cuba would receive if the blockade did not exist, an analysis was made of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows that a selected group of countries receive from the United States as well as the percentage that such flows represent in the total flows received by these countries in 2009.
The group of countries was selected based on having economies comparable to the Cuban economy and similar characteristics regarding geographic and sociocultural conditions, with special emphasis on the final use of the flows received.
The following chart shows the total foreign investment flow and those from the United States received by the selected countries in 2009.
Countries Total FDI Flow
(in millions of dollars)
FDI Flow from the United States (in millions of dollars)
Percentage of United States FDI Flows in total FDI Flow
Costa Rica 1,322.6 747 56.5
Honduras 550.4 281 51
Dominican Republic 2,158.1 589 27.3
Colombia 7,201.2 2 ,314 32.1
Nicaragua 434.2 60 13.8
El Salvador 430.6 74 17.2
Source: Based on the Foreign Direct Investment Regional Overview in Latin America and the Caribbean report published by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2009.
The analysis of this data shows that Cuba could have received FDI flows from the United States equivalent to 600,500,000 dollars on average in absolute terms.
Even when foreign investment in Cuba is conceived as a complement to national efforts and within the principle of high selectivity of programs of national interest with significant economic and social impact, the blockade entails serious consequences, including the following:
• No access to state-of-the-art technology owned by US companies.
• No access to the US market for Cuban joint venture exports.
• No access to funding from US banks to carry out Foreign Direct Investment Projects in the country.
• The application of sanctions and pressure against foreign companies by the US government, which causes a deterrent effect among potential investors and prevents the establishment of joint ventures in Cuba.
Among the sectors most affected by the restrictions imposed by the blockade on foreign investment are the oil, tourism and biotechnology industries. For example, the SHERRIT INTERNACIONAL CORP., which has investments in Cuba in the oil and mining sectors, reports lowered share value since it is unable to access US market and capital. From June 1995, as part of the application of the Helms Burton Act, the three main SHERRIT companies that traded with Cuba (Moa Nickel S.A., the Cobalt Refinery Co. Inc and the International Cobalt Co of SHERRIT) were placed on the US black list for being significant foreign investors in Cuba.
Tourism continues to be one of the main driving forces of the Cuban economy. At the close of 2010, Cuba had received 2,531,745 visitors, 4.2% more than in 2009. As such, this sector needs to continue developing by providing opportunities for foreign investors in hotel and extra-hotel infrastructure, and in developing golf courses and other activities.
US companies that work in the hotel sector and that have significant investments in the Caribbean region cannot access these opportunities in Cuba due to the prohibitions of the blockade. Nor can Cuba benefit from US hotel chains in the Caribbean, almost all of which are among the top ten hotel chains in the world as is the case of SHERATON, HILTON, MARRIOT and HOLIDAY INN.
In the food and agriculture sector, if the blockade’s restrictions did not exist, there could be joint ventures between the US and Cuba to develop the production industry for beans, soya, beef and pork, among other food products. In addition, these joint ventures could work in logistic activities such as harvesting, best practices, post harvest treatment and distribution, which would guarantee the substitution of some of the imports from the United States, the revitalization of the food sector and the generation of new jobs, among other advantages.
On the other hand, the Cuban biotechnology industry, which meets the standards of a developed country, cannot establish strategic alliances with leading US companies in the sector to carry out research and development projects.
3.3 Adverse effects on the financial and banking sectors
During the period analyzed, the US government has stepped up its policy of hostility, persecution and harassment targeted at the Cuban financial and banking sectors, and foreign financial and banking institutions with the objective to limit operations to and from Cuban banks —despite the fact that most of the transfers are made in Euros or other currencies—, arguing that Cuba is included in the “list of countries that sponsor terrorism.”
Although it is not always possible to quantify the economic impact, to site just one example, one of our commercial banks had 481,000 Euros worth of payments rejected, not to mention rejections in other currencies.
The main adverse effects caused to the banking-financial system are the following:
• Increased financial costs due to having to resort to “double forex” to meet creditors’ demands in dollars. This results in losses due to fluctuations in exchange rates or from payments made to other foreign institutions to cover currency fluctuation risk, which is very costly.
• Accounts closed in a significant number of foreign banks.
• Refusal by correspondent banks to confirm or notify regarding letters of credit.
• Refusal by some foreign banks to make payments from Cuban banking entities.
• Forced to maintain minimum balances in Cuban accounts abroad because of the risk of seizure.
During the period being analyzed, more than 20 banks decided to close their accounts with Cuban banks, which were used by Cuban banking institutions to make payments.
The following are some concrete examples of the impact on Cuban banks during 2010 and 2011:
• A European bank returned funds to a Cuban banking institution, citing that it did not accept payments from Cuba according to European laws. Another European bank rejected a payment made through a Cuban Bank for a letter of credit confirmation, citing it did not accept payments from Cuba. Another European institution refused to notify about a letter of credit related to credit offered by another European bank, without citing concrete reasons.
• A Latin American bank sent a message regarding two payments made with letters of credit issued by a Cuban bank, informing that its Risk Committee decided to stop working with Cuba for an indefinite period and until further notice, beginning in May 2010.
• Through the initiative of a European bank, the account and correspondent relationship that a Cuban banking institution had with the abovementioned European bank were closed. Similar situations had already occurred with other Cuban banks. The rupture with this correspondent bank closed the only operational entry door for family remittances sent from that European country, increasing the cost of every payment order since they had to be reimbursed through third banks.
• A Cuban bank had to substitute a Latin American insurance company that was involved in an important investment project in Cuba, when more than 40% of the shares of the insurance company were bought by a US company.
3.4 Section 211 of the 1999 US Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act and new aggressions regarding patents and trademarks.
During 2010 and so far in 2011, the risk situation and potential impact continue from an incident that took place in 2009 when several plaintiffs brought cases against the Cuban State to try to appropriate Cuban trademarks and patents, as a means of compensation, using arguments based on the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act passed in 2002 and extended until 2014.
These attempts to appropriate these intangible assets linked to intellectual property are not new. A well-known case is that of the BACARDI company, which tried to seize the HAVANA CLUB rum trademark, based on a law that it had promoted earlier in the United States, Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 regarding the registration, renewal or observance in the United States of trademarks, brewery names and commercial names related to assets nationalized in Cuba.
This section prevents Cuban owners or their successors-in-interest and foreign companies with interests in Cuba from being recognized and enjoying their rights in the United States regarding trademarks or commercial names registered and protected in Cuba.
In February 2011, nine years had passed since the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ratified that Section 211 violates national treatment and more-favoured nation obligations, contracted by the United States within the framework of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. At the time, the DSB also requested that the US Government modify this measure, whose incompatibility was established, to make it conform to the obligations set out in the TRIPS Agreement.
This pseudo-legal saga involving the Havana Club trademark in the United States continued in the Washington Court of Appeals which ruled (two judges in favour and one against) that the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Department of the Treasury acted correctly when it refused to renew the registration of the Havana Club trademark in the United States for a Cuban-French joint venture.
In contrast, the Supreme Court of Spain confirmed, in February 2011, that the property of the ‘Havana Club’ Cuban rum trademark belongs to the joint venture established between the French company Pernod Ricard and the Cuban company Corporación Cuba Ron.
This was the third time that the Spanish court has rejected Bacardi’s attempts to question the rights over the trademark of this company that has its headquarters in Cuba. Bacardi first began its process to be recognized as owner of the trademark in Spain and to cancel the trademark registered on behalf of its competitor Havana Club Holding in the courts of Madrid in 1999.
The Cuban ownership of the trademark was first upheld by the Court of First Instance (lower court) in 2005, and later in an appeal before the Provincial Court of Madrid in 2007.
Attempts to appropriate the trademarks and patents of Cuban companies compromise international treaties regarding trademarks and patents and have a serious impact on international trade.
In accordance with International Law, the United States has the responsibility to ensure that their legal and administrative laws, regulations and procedures comply with their obligations under WTO Agreements and international treaties on trademarks and patents to which they are a State Party.
CHAPTER IV. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE BLOCKADE ON OTHER SECTORS OF THE CUBAN ECONOMY.
The sugar industry reported losses of 62,100,500 dollars between April 2010 and March 2011.
Due to the impossibility to import the necessary supplies for sugar mills, 13 mills began operations behind schedule for the 2010-2011 sugarcane harvest. As a consequence, raw sugar production fell short by 168,100 tons, which represented 57,700,000 dollars in losses. Having no access to the US market, Cuba is forced to import supplies from far-off producers at higher prices and with longer delivery times.
The Cuban tourism industry reported severe losses as a consequence of the US blockade, which amounted to 1,713,000,000 dollars.
On the basis of studies conducted by US tourism industry companies, it is estimated that the Cuban tourism industry lost 1,668,000,000 dollars in 2010, as a consequence of travel restrictions.
If the blockade did not exist, the Grupo Empresarial de Marinas y Nauticas, Marlin, would have made more than 10,000,000 dollars. With its more than 650 mooring berths, at 75% capacity this company could have approximately 179,000 days of ships docking per year (of an average length of 40 feet). Profits from docking fees alone would amount to 5,000,000 dollars, plus fees from amenities such as water and electricity, security and purser services, fuel, store sales and yacht repair services, among others.
The HAVANATUR office in Canada must pay 1.6% more than other tour operators in that country for credit card transactions, which results in losses of more than 1,000,000 dollars a year. Likewise, from April 2010 to March 2011 the Grupo ITH, a tourism industry supplier, suffered losses of 26,700,000 dollars due to the higher cost of supplies purchased from third countries, excessive interest rates for commercial credits, fluctuation of exchange rates, hard currency purchases and higher shipping costs.
The Civil Aeronautics Sector continues to suffer the consequences of the US blockade. From May 2010 to April 2011 it is estimated that the sector lost 276,506,681 dollars, among other reasons due to the use of less efficient aircrafts, additional expenses for renting planes, the high cost of fuel, spare parts and other supplies, and the inability to meet passenger demand. In this context, and as a consequence of the decision of Shell España to terminate its contract with Cubana de Aviación, the airline had to find a new supplier of fuel abroad, which resulted in losses of around 271,840 dollars.
Also in 2010, Cubana de Aviación attempted to resume online ticket sales, which proved extremely difficult due to the impossibility of using US dollars for transactions and the banks' reluctance to use other currencies, to the detriment of the airline’s positioning on the international market.
The lack of access to the US market to purchase spare parts for fuel supply trucks that operate in the Havana and Varadero airports, and jet fuel and spare parts for Cuban aircrafts, along with the inability to access plane fuelling stations, resulted in an additional 5,700,000 dollars in expenses in 2010.
If Cuban commercial flights to and from Canada could use US airspace, flight time and pollution would be reduced and Cubana de Aviación would save more than 2,026,000 dollars.
In June 2010, Argentina-based Sky Chefs, which had been providing catering services to Cubana de Aviación since 2001, abruptly suspended its services following instructions from its head office in Frankfurt, Germany, in connection with the Helms-Burton Act. In search of a new supplier, Cubana de Aviación turned to Gate Gourmet, another European catering company, but was turned down because the head office of Gate Gourment in Zurich, Switzerland did not approve the contract.
The Information Sciences and Communications sector has been severely damaged by the blockade. In the period in question, losses in this sector are estimated at 7,396,394 dollars.
On October 6, 2010, Twitter acknowledged full responsibility for having blocked text messages sent to this platform from cell phones in Cuba. Likewise, in April 2010, it was announced that Cuban users could not access certain Twitter features because they were in a blacklisted country.
In October 2010, a team from the Las Villas Central University that won an Honourable Mention at the International Collegiate Programming Contest of the Association of Computing Machines (ICPC-ACM) held in China and sponsored by US company IBM was deprived of the prize due to blockade regulations.
The EcoSol Electric Division, which trades in technology for renewable energy sources, has also suffered from the effects of the blockade. Most of these products are controlled by the Eaton Group, a US company that produces single-phase and three-phase systems used in distribution networks. Unable to benefit from direct purchases from the supplier, the EcoSol Electric Division has been forced to turn to third countries for spare parts and training services at higher prices.
Beginning in February 2011, the financial firm Synivere stopped payments for cell phone roaming services owed to the Cuban telecommunications company ETECSA, claiming that its bank could not conduct any transactions with Cuba. As a result, Cuba has been unable to collect 2,600,000 dollars for these services and has endured additional difficulties.
Damages caused to the Light Industry sector because of the blockade implemented by the US government against Cuba amounted to 9,760,200 dollars and 655,900 Cuban pesos.
Production in this industry has a direct impact on the provision of essential products and people’s quality of life.
The 1,494,900 dollars lost by Union Textil could have been used to produce 88,200 care packages for newborns, which represents 52% of the 2011 production plan.
If Union Poligrafica had been able to use the 1,649,700 dollars lost as a result of the blockade, it could have produced 9,200,000 high-quality notebooks, which represent approximately 21% of the national demand for notebooks for the 2010/2011 school year.
As a result of the blockade, Cuban soap manufacturer Union Suchel lost 1,368,600 dollars that could have financed the production of 872.8 tons of bath soap of the Liz brand, equivalent to 6,900,000 bars of soap.
In the period in question, Empresa de Pinturas VITRAL could have produced whitewash and enamel for 24,000 seventy-square-meter houses, if it had the 2,285,800 dollars it lost because of the blockade.
The transportation sector has not escaped the direct and extraterritorial effects of the US blockade, with losses totalling 244,583,000 dollars a year, mainly in the land and sea transportation sectors because of travel restrictions on US citizens, merchant and cruise ships to Cuba, and merchant and cruise ships from other countries that touch Cuban ports.
Cuba’s classification as a “risk country” due to the US blockade brought about a 40 to 50% increase in prices, and an increase in interest rates, which resulted in additional expenses of 39,000,000 dollars in purchases in this sector.
As ships that dock in Cuba run the risk of being blacklisted, profits from hiring Cuban personnel on foreign ships, even those from third countries, continues to suffer damages. In addition, Cuba cannot benefit from cruise ship taxes for passengers, crew members, and operational costs.
The blockade hinders the hiring of qualified Cuban personnel in the maritime sector since these professionals cannot be hired to work on yachts, cruise ships or merchant ships; as a result, Cuba loses 10,188,000 dollars a year.
The main cruise line companies in the world, CARNIVAL. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, STAR CRUISES, NCL (Norwegian Cruise Line), MSC and COSTA, operate with US capital. Although all of them sail the Caribbean Sea, they cannot hire Cubans to staff the crews because the cruise ships call at ports in the United States and Puerto Rico. Third-country owned cruise lines, such as BARCLAY, CGA-CGM, Hapag Lloyds cannot hire Cubans either because they also call at US ports.
Among losses in the exportation of goods and services for the marine repair industry is the cancellation of a 1,188,000 CUC (Cuban Convertible Currency) contract for the repair of the FOUR MOON Ship at a Cuban shipyard.
The impact of the US blockade on the Iron and Steel Industry was greater than last year with losses totalling 106,226,500 dollars as a result of increased import costs (47,225,058 dollars), the inability to access US technology (18,184,000 dollars), additional inventory expenses (13,668,000 dollars) and the increased cost of transportation (8,918,939 dollars).
The Grupo industrial de bienes de capital GBK, which produces metal structures, facilities, containers, furniture and equipment for a number of industries, suffered losses of 835,440 dollars, a sum which could have been used to purchase 710 tons of steel sheets to produce numerous industrial and household items, or 178,000 semi-finished grinding wheels to produce abrasives, a fundamental raw material used in the iron and steel industry.
The Grupo de Bienes de Consumo (GBC) invested 27,775,980 dollars to manufacture kb-4 laminar flows, stationary bicycles, wheelchairs, autoclaves, fume extraction hoods, fans, stoves, household refrigerators, molds, press tools, restaurant steam tables, and sanitary and construction fittings. If it would have had access to raw materials and other manufacturing components sold on the US market, the same quantity of products would have cost a total of 22,307,380 dollars, and the company would have saved 5,468,600 dollars. With the money saved, the company could have manufactured twice as many household refrigerators, that is, 60,000 instead of 30,000, for use by an equal number of households.
Commercial prohibitions and restrictions stemming from the blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States have continued to severely undermine the home repair and construction programs undertaken in the country. Between April 2010 and March 2011, it is estimated that damages in the sector ascended to 22,547,634 dollars.
On the basis of the average per-unit cost of different household repair and construction activities, it is estimated that at least one of the following could not be undertaken as a result of this:
• The repair of 16,400 homes, at an average per-unit cost of 1,375 dollars.
• Maintenance work for 27,330 homes, at an average per-unit cost of 825 dollars.
• The construction of 1,132 new type-1 homes, at an average per-unit cost of 7,200 dollars.
• The construction of 1,466 new type-3 homes, at an average per-unit cost of 5,049 dollars.
Cuba’s Basic Industry sector also suffered considerable damages, calculated at over 82,600,000 dollars, mainly due to the prohibition on exporting nickel to the United States and purchasing supplies and technology from US manufacturers.
The natural market for Cuban nickel is the United States, a country that in 2010 imported some 144,000 tons of raw nickel, chiefly from Canada, Russia, Norway and Australia. Keeping in mind the United States’ geographical proximity, Cuba could have exported more than 30,000 tons of nickel to this country each year. At the average international market price for 2010, these nickel exports represent more than 654,000,000 dollars.
Similarly, the United States continues to be one of the largest cobalt consumers in the world. In 2010 it imported some 11,000 tons of this metal from far-off producers, such as Norway, Russia and China, among other countries. Because of its geographical proximity, Cuba would be an ideal cobalt supplier that could sell the United States some 2,500 tons a year. At the average international price for 2010, this represents more than 98,500,000 dollars in Cobalt sales that are currently being denied to the island as a result of the blockade.
In the oil sector, the delivery of two balancers scheduled for June 2010 at a cost of 272,449.48 Euros to the Ñico Lopez and Hermanos Díaz oil refineries (in Havana and Santiago de Cuba, respectively) was cancelled after it was determined that several components of these units were manufactured in the United States. This forced Cuba to look for alternative suppliers, delaying the delivery some nine months and causing considerable economic damages.
The US government has also pressured oil companies that offer goods or services to Cuba or that have declared an interest in negotiating oil industry contracts with the country. This pressure has included sanctions against executives and their relatives, and has caused many companies interested in doing business with Cuba to leave the country, causing considerable economic damages.
The aforementioned clearly demonstrates that the United States’ blockade against Cuba has a direct and diverse impact on all of the country’s economic sectors, and that it is one of the main obstacles Cuba faces in its economic and social development.
CHAPTER V. OPPOSITION TO THE GENOCIDAL POLICY OF THE BLOCKADE AGAINST CUBA.
5.1 Unprecedented opposition within the United States.
Opposition to the blockade has also been significantly on the rise within the United States itself.
It is impossible to outline in a few pages the countless declarations made and articles written by important individuals in the US from civil society, the military, legislative bodies, the press, NGOs and academic institutions who, over the past year, have publicly recognized the failure of the blockade, have supported bills aimed at lifting restrictions on travel by US citizens to Cuba, and/or have spoken in favor of normalizing bilateral relations or lifting the blockade.
What follows is a brief summary of the most significant and representative actions and statements against the blockade undertaken and made in the United States:
• On April 20, 2010, the US magazine National Journal published the following statement by Aaron Saunders, Communications Director for Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA): "In the past it cost us very little strategically, but here is a case where it could cost us a great deal."
• On April 21, 2010, Representative John Tanner (D-TN), Chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Media and Arbitration of the House of Representatives of the US Congress, said in a public address on Cuba that the blockade had failed and had closed the doors of the Cuban market to US workers, farmers and businesses. He added that more needed to be done and that it was time to expand US economic interests.
• On June 25, 2010, former US President Jimmy Carter, during an interview for Radio Catalunya, requested that President Barack Obama lift the blockade because it was counterproductive. "I don’t approve of sanctions against the people from any country."
• On July 9, 2010, an online survey conducted by the USA Today newspaper, which included 1,475 participants, showed that 94% were in favour of lifting the US blockade against Cuba.
• On July 13, 2010, an article by Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) was published by The Washington Post, in which he stated that putting an end to the blockade on Cuba would help the Cuban people rather than the government.
• On July 14, 2010, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), during a speech at a plenary session of the Senate on the draft bill to permit travel to Cuba, noted that the blockade had failed to accomplish its goal. “It has not worked at all,” he said. The senator added that it was immoral to use food and medicine as weapons and noted that restricting the rights of US people in order to punish the Cuban government was inconceivable. "That is what we have been doing over the last 50 years," he added, and he also questioned the authority of the US government to decide where US citizens may or may not travel to.
• On July 28, 2010, the Tampa Tribune published statements by Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL), in which she insisted that the US blockade was "a 50-year experiment that has not worked" and added that the "the blockade and travel restrictions have given the Cuban government an excuse to blame the United States for its failures..."
• On August 4, 2010, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), during a speech at a session of the Committee on Agriculture on the US Agricultural Commercial Policy and the Agriculture Bill, referred to the relaxation of travel and trade restrictions in the case of Cuba as an “extraordinary opportunity" and added that it was time to change the approach with Cuba, given that in almost 50 years the blockade has not succeeded.
• On August 19, 2010, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) noted in a communiqué that progress needed to be made towards lifting the blockade, which she described as a failed policy. Lee said that it was time to "eliminate the counterproductive and unnecessary travel restrictions for Cuba," as well as trade restrictions, and she reiterated her support of Bill H.R.4645.
• On September 2, 2010, the Amnesty International NGO released a report entitled Cuba: The US blockade against Cuba: Its impact on economic and social rights, which concluded that the sanctions imposed against Cuba by the United State affect the Cuban people’s access to medicine and medical technology, endangering the health of millions of people. Amnesty International urged President Obama to lift the blockade and to repeal the sanctions imposed against Cuba by virtue of the Trading with the Enemy Act. Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan said that the blockade was an “immoral and failed policy."
• On September 9, 2010, Amnesty International released a communiqué criticizing the renewal by President Obama of the sanctions against Cuba by virtue of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The communiqué describes this policy as "ineffectual and damaging" and calls on Obama to lift an blockade that “has a devastating effect on the daily lives of the Cuban people.”
• On September 13, 2010, at an online debate forum organized by the Council of Foreign Relations´ website (AFR.org), Head of the Programme for Latin America Julia Sweig described the US policy towards Cuba as "obsolete" and added that the Obama Administration was making slow progress in this issue. She said that she believed that the beginning of a new era in US-Cuba relations would be very favorable.
• In September 2010, Bloomberg announced that cell phone company Nokia had requested that President Obama lift the blockade in order to be able to market its products in Cuba. AT&T and Verizon Communications also requested that telephone calls to and from Cuba be made easier.
• On October 9, 2010, during its 29th Conference, the Cuban section of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) issued a declaration condemning the US blockade and advocating for the elimination of US unilateral measures against Cuba.
• Between November 3 and 17, 2010, 1,000 Americans participated in a survey conducted by Cuba Standard. The results showed that 47% of the people surveyed wanted the blockade on Cuba lifted, as well as restrictions on trade and travels by US citizens to Cuba; 22% were against the blockade, and 31% were unsure.
• From November 9 to 13, 2010, the yearly Special Joint Assembly Meeting of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the World Church Service and the Latin American Council of Churches was held in New Orleans. A resolution was passed at the meeting advocating a change in US-Cuba relations, the elimination of restrictions on travel by US citizens to Cuba and the lifting of the blockade, as well as a review of the sentences given to the five Cuban antiterrorist fighters.
• On December 2, 2010, Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) said, according to a report by the EFE news agency, that it was “absurd” that the US Congress maintained restrictions on Cuba that respond to a Cold War mentality.
• On March 30, 2011, former President Jimmy Carter in a television interview during his second visit to Cuba said: "In the future, I hope that trade and travel between the two countries will be unrestricted and that the US blockade will be completed eliminated. The blockade oppresses the Cuban people. It not only affects the Cuban government, but also the Cuban people, who are ultimately the most severely hit by it. I think US-Cuba relations should change.”
Carter added, “Most Cubans want relations with the United States to be normal, and most Americans also want relations with Cuba to be normal…I think that some progress has been made in the last few years, because Miami and other Cuban-American communities, including young people in these communities, want the blockade lifted and want to have the opportunity to normally travel in both directions: from the Unites States to Cuba and from Cuba to the Unites States. This is a change.”
• On May 10, 2011, US Reverend Jesse Jackson, a former presidential candidate and a renowned human rights activist, in an interview with Prensa Latina in Doha, Qatar said, “If we [the US government] have been able to hold talks, reach an understanding and establish relations with China, a country with an ideology different from ours, not doing the same with Cuba is an outdated idea.” He added, “We are neighbors and therefore we need each other. We can develop ties that would bring mutual benefits…I await the day when the wall of the blockade that keeps Cuba and the Unites States apart falls.”
5.2 International Opposition.
The international community’s growing and overwhelming opposition to the US blockade against Cuba is significant.
Innumerable voices have been raised around the world to call for an end of this inhumane policy. In the period covered by this report, numerous pronouncements in favor of the immediate and unconditional lifting of the blockade have been made.
The following are especially noteworthy:
• The 17th Ordinary Session of the Heads of State or Government of the African Union, held in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea from June 30 to July 1, 2011, adopted a special declaration that calls on “the United States government to put an end to the long-standing and unjustifiable economic and commercial blockade imposed against the Republic of Cuba and to allow it to enjoy legitimate perspectives for its sustainable development. Once again we make an appeal to the US government to put an end to its sanctions against Cuba.”
• The Third Cuba-CARICOM Ministerial Meeting held in Havana from September 17 to 18, 2010, adopted a final declaration which called for the immediate and unconditional lifting of the blockade against the Cuban people.
• During the general debate of the 65th period of sessions of the UN General Assembly, held in September 2010, the high-level representatives of 33 countries openly criticized the blockade and called for an end to this policy. The repudiation of the US blockade and the demand to lift it was one of the five topics most debated by the member States, clearly demonstrating that this issue continues to be of great concern for the international community.
• During the session held in the headquarters of the European Parliament in Brussels on October 11, 2010, a report presented by Brazilian Chair of the World Peace Council Socorro Gomez states that “Cuba, socialist and revolutionary, continues to endure isolation, blockade and pressures, something which demands the unconditional solidarity of the World Peace Council in the struggle against the blockade and the liberation of their five heroes, imprisoned in the United States.”
• On October 19, 2010, the Jamaican House of Commons unanimously adopted a new resolution in support of Cuba’s UN General Assembly resolution against the blockade, stating, among other things, that “the blockade is a violation of International Law and runs contrary to the aims and principles of the United Nations Charter and of the norms governing international trade and freedom of navigation. It is a violation of a sovereign state’s right to peace, development and security and, in its essence and aims, continues to be an act of unilateral aggression and a permanent threat to the stability of a UN member country.”
• On October 22, 2010, the State Duma of the Russian Federation’s Federal Assembly adopted a resolution which approved the Call on the Parliaments of UN Member States and International Parliaments by the Duma, to eliminate the economic, commercial and financial blockade against the Republic of Cuba. The document states that, in its refusal to abolish the economic blockade imposed on Cuba, “the United States of America continues to violate the norms and principles that govern normal relations between States, ignoring the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the members of the international community expressed in the pertinent UN General Assembly resolutions.” The Duma once again urged parliaments around the world to “call on the United States of America to lift the economic, commercial and financial blockade on the Republic of Cuba without delay.”
• On October 25, 2010, the Panama National Assembly adopted Resolution No. 19, which, again, “regretted the continued existence of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on the Republic of Cuba” and expressed its support for the “demand voiced by the international community, calling for an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade that the United States has imposed against the Republic of Cuba for 48 years.”
• On October 26, 2010 and for the 19th consecutive time, the United Nations General Assembly –the most democratic and representative body of the international community– unequivocally and almost unanimously pronounced itself against the US blockade, voicing the opinion of the overwhelming majority of member states and securing a new, historical victory for the Cuban people, for justice and for truth, when it approved, with 187 votes in favor, 2 against and 3 abstentions, the resolution entitled Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. Thirty-eight countries, including Cuba, along with several international, regional and sub-regional organizations such as the Group of 77 and China, the Non-Aligned Movement, CARICOM, the African Union, MERCOSUR, and the European Union, participated in the ensuing general debate and discussions of details regarding the vote.
• On October 29, 2010, the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of El Salvador approved a motion, supported by the majority of the members of parliament from the various political parties, which celebrates and expresses its support for the decision of the UN General Assembly to demand that the United States of America put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade against the Republic of Cuba. The motion also voices concerns over the enactment and implementation of laws and regulations such as the Helms-Burton Act, whose extraterritorial effects undermine the sovereignty of other States.
• The 41st Ministerial Meeting of the Latin American Energy Organization (OLADE) held in Managua, Nicaragua on October 29, 2010, unanimously approved, for the first time, a statement condemning the US blockade against Cuba, thus joining the voices around the world that are calling for its immediate lifting.
• In November 2010, the Mexican Senate adopted a Memorandum of Agreement which “urges the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to make the vote of the international community against the blockade on Cuba effective in Mexico through concrete measures aimed at guaranteeing the lifting of the blockade.”
• The Heads of State and Government of Latin American countries who convened in Mar del Plata, Argentina, on December 3 and 4, 2010, for the 20th Latin American Summit, once again approved a special communiqué on the necessity to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba and to eliminate the Helms-Burton Act. This communiqué reiterates “the most vigorous condemnation of the implementation of laws and measures that run contrary to International Law, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and urges the government of the United States of America to put an end to its application.” Similarly, it calls on “the government of the United States of America to comply with the resolution approved in 19 consecutive General Assemblies of the United Nations to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba.”
• On December 8, 2010, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) once again condemned the economic, financial and commercial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba in a declaration made by the CARICOM chair, Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding, on the occasion of the 38th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. The declaration calls the blockade policy unjust and identifies it as the main obstacle faced by Cuba in terms of its development and efforts to overcome global challenges, such as the current economic crisis.
• On December 23, 2010, the Gambian National Assembly unanimously approved a resolution which calls on the United Nations, the United States government and the international community to lift the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by Washington against Cuba. Among other statements, the resolution affirms that the blockade constitutes a violation of international law; represents a flagrant, massive and systematic violation of the rights of the Cuban people; and runs contrary to the principle and purposes of the United Nations Charter. The document also describes the United States policy against Cuba as a unilateral act of aggression whose extraterritoriality violates the sovereign rights of many other countries.
• On March 22, 2011, representatives of the 28 member states of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic System (SELA) gathered in Caracas, condemned the unjust blockade that Washington maintains against Cuba. SELA Permanent Secretary José Rivera Banuet reiterated the organization’s condemnation of this policy and stated that relations between the United States and countries in Latin America and the Caribbean could improve substantially if Obama decided to put an end to the blockade, an issue that has been addressed during debates by members of SELA and the international community.
• During its 16th Ministerial Conference (Inter-Summit), held in Bali, Indonesia, from May 25 to 27, 2011, the Non-Aligned Movement once again called on the United States to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed against Cuba. It stated that in addition to being unilateral and contrary to the UN Charter, International Law and the good neighbor principle, the US blockade causes the Cuban people great material and economic damages. NAM representatives once again demanded that the United States abide by the resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly, which call for the lifting of the blockade, and expressed their profound concern over the expansion of its extraterritorial scope.
CONCLUSIONS:
Despite the intense and growing demands by the international community for the US government to change its policy towards Cuba, lift the blockade and normalize bilateral relations with Cuba, the Obama administration has maintained the blockade policy intact.
The blockade violates International Law, runs contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and constitutes a contravention of a sovereign state’s right to peace, development and security. In its essence and objectives, the blockade represents an act of unilateral aggression and a permanent threat against the stability of a nation. The blockade constitutes a massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire people. It also violates the constitutional rights of US citizens by denying them the freedom to travel to Cuba, and encroaches on the sovereign rights of many other states because of its extraterritorial nature.
As of December 2010, the direct economic damages to the Cuban people caused by the implementation of the United States’ economic, commercial and financial blockade, based on current prices and very conservative estimates, amounts to more than 104 billion dollars.
Taking into account the extreme devaluation of the dollar against the price of gold on the international financial market during 2010 and this continual trend, the damages caused to the Cuban economy would exceed 975 billion dollars.
The blockade continues to be an absurd, illegal and morally unjustifiable policy which has not succeeded and never will succeed in undermining the Cuban people’s patriotic decision to defend its sovereignty, independence and right to self-determination. It has only succeeded in subjecting the Cuban population to shortages and needless suffering, in restricting and hindering the development of the country and in seriously damaging the Cuban economy. It is the greatest obstacle Cuba faces in its economic development.
The president of the United States has sufficient prerogatives to significantly modify the blockade against Cuba, and to do so without the intervention of Congress.
The blockade is a unilateral and immoral policy which is condemned both within the United States and by the international community. The United States must lift it immediately and unconditionally.
Once again, Cuba is confident that it can count on the support of the international community in its legitimate demand for an end of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)