On Thursday, September 17, 2015 Vancouver
Communities in Solidarity with Cuba (VCSC)
organized a public community forum & discussion
titled, “Reestablishing U.S./Cuba Relations &
the Necessity of Lifting the U.S. Blockade on
Cuba”. This forum was held exactly 9 months
after the December 17, 2014 announcement
by US president Barack Obama and Cuban
president Raul Castro that the US and Cuba
would be reestablishing diplomatic ties after 54
years of broken relations. The community forum
also took place during an international period of
action where groups across Canada, the US and
around the world were campaigning to bring an
end to the continued U.S. blockade against Cuba,
September 15-19, 2015.
Below are excerpts from a talk by Nino Pagliccia,
one of the speakers at the forum. Nino is a long
time Cuba solidarity activist in Canada and
editor of the new book “Cuba Solidarity in
Canada: 5 Decades of People-to-People Foreign
Relations” (Friesen Press, 2014).
It’s a Cruel Situation that the Blockade
is still Here and Has Been Here for 54
Years!
Thank you everyone for being here. I feel
really honored to be invited to speak about
Cuba. I’m always happy to talk about Cuba
as much as I can, as much as I know. was also
happy to be today at the picket in front of
the U.S. consulate and I was thinking that if
this new group, Friends of Cuba Against the
U.S. Blockade of Cuba, is as successful as the
previous Free the Cuban 5 Committee, that
has freed the Cuban 5, or at least contributed,
I think soon the blockade will end.
The blockade is 54 years old. That’s how old
it is, much older than many of you in here
probably. About half of the time, or the last
half of those 54 years, Cuba has introduced
resolutions at the UN assembly, asking for a
vote on the need to end the U.S. blockade of
Cuba. Twenty three times, the majority of the
countries of the world at the UN assembly
have voted against the U.S. blockade. So
I think it’s kind of a cruel situation where
you have most of the countries agree that
something is not right, and yet the blockade
is still there and has been there for 54 years.
Now this year, 2015, Cuba will introduce
again a resolution to the UN on the need
to end the blockade of Cuba. [...] But this
time, it’s particularly interesting because it’s
the first year that this resolution is going to
be introduced by Cuba after December 17,
2014. That is, after the reestablishment of
diplomatic relationships between the U.S. and
Cuba. [...]
...the blockade is not a sexy topic, so I think
we’ll have to bear with it. But as I said before,
I think it’s important to be informed. [...]
The whole report has five parts, but the most
important part is the first part, because that
is titled,“Continuity of the Blockade Policy.
That's the part we want to talk about tonight.
Now the first thing that I want to mention
is the complexity of the blockade against
Cuba. It is extremely complex because it is
not one single piece of legislation that the
U.S. government has put out saying, ok now
we have a blockade, this is what it means and
that's it. I think that it's much more complex
than that, and in fact, 10 different pieces of
legislation that deal with different aspects
of the blockade against Cuba in increasing
progression. And that's important to know.
Some of the legislation goes back to 1961,
some of which you've seen in [previous] video
clips, and then 1963 again, and then it goes to
the Torricelli Act of 1992. We're more familiar
with that, I think we've heard that several
times, that's a strong one. The Helms-Burton
Act of 1996, signed by Hillary's husband.
And there is one that is quite interesting; it's
called Trading with the Enemy Act. Now this
is a legislation from 1917, this is way before
the blockade of Cuba as we know it. But it's
important to mention that because that is
also part of contributing to what we know
nowadays as the blockade against Cuba. [...]
The other aspect that we need to be aware of
that's covered here in the resolution is, what
Obama has done since December 17, 2014.
Ok, nine months have gone by, what has
happened that is new? Ok, the US government
has relaxed some travel restrictions to Cuba.
But this is only for some, moving it from 12
different cases, so to speak, to a general license,
but people still need to get a license, in order
to travel to Cuba. Also, this relaxation on
travel does not cover tourism. So U.S. tourists
still cannot travel to Cuba. [...]
There has been some exports [to Cuba] in
the area of telecommunications that have
been relaxed by the U.S. government. Now,
it's interesting because everything related
to telecommunications has been quite
comprehensive, in fact it covers products,
telecommunications services, and supplies
for infrastructure, buildings and what not,
that are related to telecommunications that
is allowed. So there has been a relaxation
for that. But of course we need to ask, why
is there such a particular interest by the U.S.
to be so open about telecommunications but
not about other things? Well, I'm not trying
to answer that question but I think it becomes
quite obvious that there is a particular interest
in being able to engage, and I think that is
the word the U.S. government uses, “engaging
Cubans”. And what an easy way to do it,
especially engaging young people, by freeing
some of the telecommunications, internet, and
what not in Cuba. So, that's another thing
that has been sort of opened.
In terms of commerce, it's very interesting
because commerce and finances are not
totally open. The relaxation of commerce
has been done only, notice only, for non-
state entities. [...] The U.S. will only import
products from non-state entities in Cuba.
The U.S. government, basically what it
is saying is, we don't want anything to do
with the Cuban state. And yet they open
diplomatic relations, which are state to state
kind of interactions, relationships. But they
don't want anything to do with the Cuban
state. Now, this is very crucial [because the
U.S.] cannot import Cuban tobacco and
rum, nickel, biotechnology products and
medical services. These are very important
sectors. Cuba relies on these sectors. [...]
Now, quickly, I want to cover two more
things. What the US president can do
and cannot do now. Ok, now that is very
important, because that will tell us two
things, well one thing mainly. That the U.S.
president, Obama specifically, still has some
power, that's what we're saying, that's why
he signed the legislation, against trading
with the enemy act; because that gives him
power to change things. So let's see, what
is it that he could change? But not quite
yet. For instance, Obama can authorize the
use of U.S. dollars in Cuba's international
transactions. Cuba still cannot use U.S.
dollars. It's forbidden from using, it's not
recognized as being able to trade with U.S.
dollars internationally. Obama can change
that, he has not done it yet, and we don't
know when he's going to do it. Obama can
consent that these transactions be carried
out through the U.S. banking system. Well
as I said before, Cuba still doesn't have
access to the U.S. banking system, so Obama
could change that.
Yes, I think in that case Cuba could open
accounts in the U.S. Cuba does not have
access to grants or loans from international
banks or from U.S. banks. Now Obama could
relax that part of the blockade. If Cuba could
have access to loans they could do quite a bit
in terms of trade and commerce. And Cuba
needs to do that, but cannot do it. Other
things, authorize Cuban aircraft and ships to
transport travelers and whatnot, to authorize
direct exports of U.S. products to Cuba, to
allow imports into the U.S. of Cuban services
or products, which as I mentioned before
Cuba cannot do. Whereas Obama could relax
that part of the legislation. To authorize U.S.
firms to make investments in Cuba, and so
on and so forth, and there are a few more.
So these are things, and there is a list of 13
different items, where Obama has a direct
way of changing that. He has the powers to
do that. But of course he has not done it.
On the other hand, what is it that Obama
cannot do, and this is also important to know.
Obama cannot undo aspects of the Torricelli
law, such as allow U.S. subsidiaries in third
countries from trading products with Cuba.
That's under the Torricelli law, so that cannot
be done. Aspects of the Helms-Burton law,
the extra-territorial aspect of the Helms-
Burton law, Obama cannot change that, that's
up to the congress. Now what is the likelihood
of a republican congress to change that? Let’s
keep that in the back of our minds, but let’s
not get discouraged by that.
The last point that I want to make, is that in
spite of what we know about the blockade,
in spite of the changes and the diplomatic
relationships, in spite of what Obama can
do, there is still elements or issues about the
blockade that have happened just since last
December. Since last December there have
been problems that Cuba has identified
that stem directly from the blockade. And
I'm going to mention some of them. [...]
There is one aspect that actually relates to
Canada. A couple of Canadians traveled
to Cuba and they paid their expenses
through Paypal. Well, that was frozen, so
basically the U.S. firm Paypal has frozen
the account and the payment that these
two Canadians had made about their trip to
Cuba. [...] This is ridiculous. In Japan the
Costco membership of a Cuban diplomat
was terminated. Because this was a Cuban
citizen, Costco took it upon themselves to
say, oh no, he cannot be a member of Costco,
and terminated their membership. This has
happened just last June.
So anyway, I think with that, I will end, but
I will end with a question. Now given all of
this, and given that this is now as a resolution
that in fact will be presented at the UN and
will be voted on at the UN on the 27th of
October. How is the U.S. going to vote? We
know that for 23 years they have been voting
against and against and against. Or in favor
of the blockade let’s say. Now, how will they
vote this year? I will end with that question,
I don’t have the answer. It’s quite a dilemma
for them to decide now which way to go.
And I think that is when we will probably
get a good hint of their good intentions or
their real intentions.
Thank you.
Back to Article Listing
