<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="container content-width3" style="--font-size:20px;">
<div class="header reader-header reader-show-element"> <font
size="-2"><a class="domain reader-domain"
href="https://www.resumen-english.org/2019/05/no-threat-will-stop-the-relationship-of-solidarity-between-our-countries/">https://www.resumen-english.org/2019/05/no-threat-will-stop-the-relationship-of-solidarity-between-our-countries/</a></font>
<h1 class="reader-title">“No Threat Will Stop the Relationship
of Solidarity between Our Countries”</h1>
By María Fernanda Barreto on May 25, 2019</div>
<div class="content">
<div class="moz-reader-content line-height4 reader-show-element">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div id="wrapper2">
<div id="container">
<div id="left-div">
<div id="left-inside">
<div>
<p>A few days before Chapter III of the
Helms-Burton Act came into force, we had the
opportunity to talk with Rogelio Polanco, <span
id="more-9640"></span>ambassador of the
Republic of Cuba in Venezuela, about it. We
discussed with him the reasons for this measure,
its geopolitical implications and the
possibility that this U.S. law fulfils the
objective that the United States has set for
itself; to pressure Cuba to break the deep
relationship that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez
woven between the two countries.</p>
<p><em>Ambassador, what is Title III of the
Helms-Burton Act that is now in effect?</em></p>
<p>This law is a nefarious U.S. legislation
adopted in 1996 by the U.S. Congress which seeks
the recolonization of Cuba. That is why our
people have rightly called it, “The Law of
Slavery”.</p>
<p>It is the most complete attempt to establish in
a single legal norm the entire historical
intention of the American power to subject our
country to its designs. With it, they take away
the executive power of the US president to carry
out the foreign policy towards Cuba, and
codifies all the previous laws into a single
legislation that has a distinct extraterritorial
character, and therefore illegal from the point
of view of international law. It consists of
four titles in which establishes in detail all
the actions that the U.S. should develop in
order to guarantee the overthrow of the Cuban
Revolution, the submission of the current
government of Cuba to the jurisdiction of the
U.S. and thus, establish a so-called
transitional government that would certify when
the properties nationalized by Cuba would be
compensated in order to end the objective of
this law. Title III is the one that allows the
activation of courts in the U.S. to receive
lawsuits from U.S. citizens against companies
and citizens of third countries that have
invested in properties that were nationalized by
the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s. This sets a
very negative precedent, first because it would
question a country’s right to establish its own
nationalizations and, on the other hand, it
would allow a country to take legal action
against events that occur in a foreign nation.</p>
<p>Until now, all administrations prior to Trump –
and even in the first year of this
administration – had suspended the
implementation of this title because it entails
legal risks and in turn implies serious
confrontations with other allied countries.</p>
<p><em>Hadn’t Cuba offered compensation for these
nationalizations many years ago?</em></p>
<p>Yes, Cuba carried out a series of
nationalizations in 1959 as part of the
fulfilment of the objectives of the Revolution
that was to make Cuba a truly sovereign and
independent nation that would return to the
people its natural resources that had been in
the hands of foreign companies and citizens of
other countries, mainly the United States. One
of the first laws that was enacted was the
Agrarian Reform Law, which fulfilled a dream of
our people and that was the land could not be
controlled outside of the one who works it. This
involved a conflict with numerous U.S. companies
that owned the most fertile lands and in turn
the Revolution passed another series of laws
that confronted U.S. hegemony in Cuba. Sugar
mills, banks, mines, electric companies and
other companies owned by U.S. citizens were
nationalized. That was a big part of the class
struggle that took place at the beginning of the
revolution. Let’s remember that the U.S. refused
to refine oil from the U.S.S.R. and then, in
another arbitrary action, stopped receiving part
of the so-called sugar quota of exports from
Cuba to its country, which dealt a serious blow
to our economy and in turn to the well-being of
our people. So legally, our government took the
decision to nationalize the refineries and sugar
mills, and finally all U.S. companies in Cuba.
We then offered compensation equal to that
offered to five European countries and Canada.</p>
<p>With the governments of Spain, France, Great
Britain, Switzerland and Canada, it was possible
to reach fair compensation agreements in a
dialogue of equality. The U.S. government, in an
arrogant manner, did not agree to take part in
any negotiations and instead broke off relations
with our country and in 1962 established a
blockade against our country. The compensation
process established deadlines, costs under
international law, and even the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that the nationalizations made by
Cuba at that time had been in accordance with
the law. However, the U.S. government prevented
an agreement from being formally reached.</p>
<p><em>What companies are expected to sue? I ask
because lately people have been declaring in
the U.S. press that they are descendants of
Cuban families who at the time owned banks,
hardware stores and other businesses, that is,
families of the Cuban bourgeoisie and not U.S.
businessmen. </em></p>
<p>For many years a U.S. entity determined the
number of potential plaintiffs, which according
to that list are about six thousand. This issue
has been permanently open to negotiation, the
United States has even raised amounts. On that
list were those who at the time were U.S.
citizens. But the Helms Burton Act opened the
possibility for citizens who were Cuban at the
time of nationalization and who later acquired
U.S. citizenship to be included in these
lawsuits. This is even more arbitrary and would
further complicate the process of solving an
eventual negotiation on compensation for those
who were actually citizens of that country at
the time of nationalization and to whom Cuba has
always been willing to engage in a comprehensive
negotiation process that also includes the
demands of the Cuban people for the damages
caused by the blockade during all these years.
These demands were introduced in 1999 and 2000
in Cuban courts, and therefore they are
obligatory for the Cuban government to comply
with in any process of negotiations with the
United States, these damages are around 300
billion dollars. In fact, during the Obama
administration there were conversations on this
complex issue as a gesture of mutual goodwill to
address this issue.</p>
<p>Since 1996 several of the countries that can be
harmed by the scope of Title III of the law
established so-called antidotes laws that
prevent the application of the law Helms´-Burton
in their jurisdictions. It is for this reason
that the rapid and forceful declaration of
several countries of the European Union and
Canada was given, which established that they
would defend their companies with investments in
Cuba and that they would bring lawsuits before
the World Trade Organization.</p>
<p><em>How will all this benefit Donald Trump?</em></p>
<p>I think that there is an obvious error on how
to proceed with this and also in diagnosing the
current administration’s foreign policy towards
Cuba. Such an action goes against the interests
of the United States in the international arena
and of its citizens. In 2018, for example,
650,000 Americans and 500,000 Cubans residing in
the United States travelled to Cuba.</p>
<p>Any action that seeks to limit relations with
Cuba goes against the interests of its own
citizens, and at the same time this title of the
Helms-Burton law goes against its allies and
against the freedom of navigation, the freedom
of trade, that is to say, the very fundamental
laws of capitalism. This administration has had
unpredictable actions in its foreign policy, it
has acted against multilateralism, isolating
itself from important multilateral agreements.</p>
<p><em>But don’t you think this activation could
come from an electoral reason?</em></p>
<p>Of course, we have only one element left to
take into account to understand this senseless
action of the Trump administration, the domestic
politics, and electoral outreach of Florida.
Once again, foreign policy towards Cuba becomes
an element of internal politics, especially
electoral politics. In the conflict between the
parties of that country, some consider that an
aggressive action against Cuba would give
political advantage to the Republican Party and
President Trump for their re-election. This is
far from the reality because President Obama won
in Florida precisely with a change of vision of
politics by attempting to interpret the
generalized feeling of the Cuban community and
in general, of U.S. society in relation to our
country.</p>
<p><em>Last September Trump invoked the Monroe
Doctrine at the UN, now one of the arguments
being given to justify this tightening of the
blockade to exert pressure on Cuba in order to
stop supporting Venezuela. Does it seem likely
that the Cuban government will yield to this
blackmail? Or that the Cuban people, feeling
pressured by this measure, will demand that
their government move away from Venezuela?</em></p>
<p>They know that’s never going to happen. The
foreign policy of the Cuban Revolution has
always been based on solidarity,
internationalism and loyalty to the values we
defend. Our people and our revolutionary
government have never yielded to blackmail of
this nature by any foreign government and in
particular by the United States.</p>
<p>It is the historical course of imperialism that
has always sought to subdue other peoples by
force. The reality is that from the beginning of
the Cuban Revolution, the United States has
tried to hamper any improvement in bilateral
relations with Cuba ceasing to comply with its
foreign policy of solidarity or making
concessions in its domestic policy. Cuba never
gave in to blackmail. Let’s remember the
solidarity of the Cuban people with the peoples
of Africa, the people of Vietnam, the support
for Puerto Rico’s struggle for independence and
the support for the national liberation
struggles of Latin America and the Caribbean.</p>
<p>Our people have always refused to accept
pressure to surrender any of their sovereign,
independent and supportive policies.</p>
<p>The current US administration’s attempts to use
Cuba’s solidarity aid to Venezuela as a pretext
are doomed to failure. In addition, we take this
opportunity to denounce that the United States
pretends to justify its actions on the basis of
slander, saying that Cuba has an occupying army
in Venezuela. Trump’s national security advisor
John Bolton has even gone so low to call our
worthy doctors, who render their
internationalist service on Bolivarian soil
“thugs”.</p>
<p>We reject this type of malicious slander and
reiterate our total solidarity with the
Bolivarian government headed by President
Nicolás Maduro and we also emphatically
reiterate that no threat will impede the
relationship of solidarity between our
countries.</p>
<p><em>On May 2, there are also new measures
against Iran. Do you think it is a coincidence
or is this evidence that both measures are
part of the same geostrategic plan?</em></p>
<p>This administration has been attacking
international law since it came to power. The
withdrawal from the Paris agreement on climate
change, from the nuclear agreement with Iran,
from UNESCO, from the UN Human Rights Council
and from all the main multilateral economic
agreements of which it was a part of, has, of
course, brought them in conflict with the whole
world by trying to use these elements as a
weapon of pressure.</p>
<p>The fact that these measures coincide on the
same date is only part of an aggressive
escalation against any government and any
country that does not submit to it. The United
States is threatening international peace and
security, because we remember that the UN
Charter establishes the prohibition of the
threat of the use of force, non-interference in
the internal affairs of other nations and the
sovereign equality of states. These are
fundamental elements of international law that
are being trampled underfoot and that act
constitutes a threat to peace.</p>
<p><em>Cuba has sixty year of resisting the
political and also military pressure of the
United States. Is it really likely that the
current U.S. government will dare to take
direct military action or support a new
attempt by the Miami based Cuban-American
lobby like the failed invasion of the Bay of
Pigs?</em></p>
<p>The US has based its foreign policy on
permanent aggression against other countries and
the use of force, with its most blatant act
being an invasion of other countries, on the
basis of the most unusual pretexts. It is part
of its unilateral, militaristic geopolitical
vision. That is why they have 800 military bases
in 80 countries with more than 250,000 troops.
Their foreign policy is based on the use of
force in international relations, so nothing can
be ruled out and that is why in Cuba we have
always maintained our military preparation based
on the doctrine of “All People’s War”.</p>
<p>We are a small country only ninety miles from
the greatest economic, military and
technological power in the contemporary world.
We have been subject to a criminal blockade for
decades, we have been subjected to violent
actions of all kinds, and as you mentioned we
were also subject to a direct military invasion
of our country, funded by the U.S. government.</p>
<p>During all these years Cuba has been
threatened. However, we have maintained our
conviction that the unity of our people and the
preparation to face any imperialist aggression
is our life insurance. We know that to the
extent that an action of this nature is more
costly, they will think about it several times
before committing the most serious mistake of a
military action against Cuba.</p>
<p><em>What about a military aggression against
Venezuela?</em></p>
<p>All U.S. spokespeople have repeated as their
mantra over the past few months that “all
options are on the table”. This arrogant phrase
is the recognition that they are making use of
the threat of using force against an independent
and sovereign country like Venezuela. Many
times Cuba denounced, in a timely and firm
manner, the movement of troops and means
necessary for military action against Venezuela.</p>
<p>The threat against the Bolivarian nation
remains latent. That’s why it’s important for
the whole world to denounce it, reject it and
prevent an action of that nature from taking
place.</p>
<p><em>Do you think that these political, economic
and military pressures on Cuba and Venezuela
could lead to the definitive imposition of the
Monroe doctrine?</em></p>
<p>We totally reject that possibility. Despite the
fact that the US has invoked the Monroe
Doctrine, and security advisor Bolton, to the
group of the defeated at the Bay of Pigs in
Miami, said that the Monroe doctrine is alive
and well, this does not correspond to reality.
They have had to recognize that they are facing
a different world, a Latin America that will not
allow the aggressions and invasions that for
decades the U.S. government carried out.</p>
<p>It is true that historically Latin America and
the Caribbean have been considered “their
backyard” and numerous theories have been
invoked for more than two centuries to try to
justify that purpose. However, today’s Latin
America is not the same as it was two hundred
years ago. It has lived through a process in
which in recent years progressive, left-wing,
revolutionary governments came to power.
Although today we are seeing a regression of
this process, that regression is circumstantial.
We have to view it in a strategic perspective.</p>
<p>The fact that we have had these recent
experiences gives the revolutionary and
progressive movements in this region lessons of
mistakes that could become experiences for new
victories in the future because what is clear is
that the predatory nature of capitalism has no
future in our region. This is demonstrated by
the fact that the right-wing governments that
have recently come to power in the region are
far from consolidated and far from secure in
their continuity in power.</p>
<p>Looking at the long term, it will be
increasingly difficult for the hegemonic power
of the United States to take the history of
Latin America back to the periods in which,
through military power and other instruments of
domination, they tried to make Latin America an
integral part of their territory.</p>
<p><a
href="https://correodelalba.org/2019/05/25/polanco-ninguna-amenaza-impedira-la-relacion-solidaria-entre-nuestros-paises/">https://correodelalba.org/2019/05/25/polanco-ninguna-amenaza-impedira-la-relacion-solidaria-entre-nuestros-paises/</a></p>
<p>Source: Correo del Alba, translation Resumen
Latinoamericano, North America bureau</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://freedomarchives.org/">https://freedomarchives.org/</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>