By Gustavo Espinoza M. on July 10, 2019
Graphic: Aidan
When the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991 and the socialist system in Eastern Europe came down, the United States Administration was sure that Cuba would easily fall into its hands.
They thought Havana would fall sooner than later outpaced by its own difficulties and that the population, desperate and discouraged by the crisis, would turn their back to the Revolution born in the land of Jose Marti since January 1959. All calculations led Washington to think capitalism would be immediately restored in Cuba. None of that happened.
Four years after those events the most aggressive forces of financial capital saw their calculations were wrong. Cuba not only did not surrender, on the contrary, it reaffirmed its will to continue the socialist path under the influence of the revolutionary leadership of Fidel Castro and his comrades. The empire’s patience was running out.
It was just unacceptable that such a thing would happen in what the U.S. rulers already estimated as a unipolar world, one in which subordinated the aspirations of independence from any government into submission.
With this imperialist logic as his guide, on February 9, 1995, Senator Jesse Helms, then chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, presented a bill along with Tea Party loyalist Dan Burton aimed at strangling the Cuban Revolution. This was the beginning of what is now known as the Helms-Burton Act, an evil piece of legislation that despite being directed at Cuba was really an act against the world.
According to provisions in this act, Cuba could not export or import any commodities from the U.S. and it could not trade with U.S. subsidiaries in third countries either. The bill banned U.S. tourists from visiting the island nor could they use U.S. currency in commercial and financial transactions abroad. Above all, Cuban vessels and aircrafts were not to touch U.S. territory.
Have they really thought about what this type of law means? It establishes an incomparable precedent in history. A Government allows itself the luxury of dictating norms to regulate the life, contracts, production, trade, economy and civil activities in a second country.
Could Peru, for instance, dictate a norm of this kind with regards to Chile? Could France stipulate a similar norm with regards to Germany; or China regarding Japan? Why would the United States implement that in its relationship with Cuba in the first place? Why has Donald Trump decided strengthen it?
Who would oppose Cuba from selling cancer-fighting drugs to French health companies, or to the government of that country; or that England sells cars to Cuba? The governments of those countries logically make that decision and it would be understandable. But how can these national decisions be taken away by the United States Administration? Who gave them this right?
The governments of England, France, Germany and others never admit it but companies and banks in those countries are fined if they go against Helms Burton and trade with Cuba.
LegalExperts admit this old law has four titles. The first one internationalizes the conflict maintained by the United States with Cuba, extending it to all countries of the world. Washington has decided that no one may trade with, buy from or sell to Cuba.
The second is aimed at presenting the “aid” of the U.S. Government to the people of Cuba so that it “transitions towards capitalism.” Has anyone asked in all the administrations since the Revolution asked Cuba if it wants to do that “transition” and fall under the influence of the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund?
Title 3 grants U.S. citizens or companies —including Cubans nationalized in the United States— to bring lawsuits before U.S. tribunals regarding their alleged possessions in Cuban territory who changed their legal status starting from 1959. As a matter of fact, the Act allows Cubans who became U.S. nationals to live placidly in Florida to “recover” their “companies” and assets abandoned under that circumstance. Therefore, U.S. courts would rule on ownership of land in Cuba. No less than that!
And Title 4 establishes amongst other things that this decision making in the U.S would be maintained until there is a government in Cuba which, “according to the United States,” abides by “democratic norms.” This is to say, a government like Brazil’s Bolsonaro, Argentina’s Videla or Chile’s Pinochet. All of them were backed and aided by Washington.
Following the titles of this Act, can anyone doubt that the United States “feels” they are ultimately the owner of everything and for this reason they enact laws against the world?
Source: Cubadebate, translation Resumen Latinoamericano, North American bureau