Just a moment...
peoplesdispatch.org

On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

edit: result of the vote: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/system/cache/media_attachments/files/113/398/372/180/881/996/original/82c4d1f509e933fa.jpg

  • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
    1262·
    17 days ago

    Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

    And just like every year, the vote will do nothing.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3213·
      17 days ago

      it’ll add up to a hell of a lot of justified reparations when the US backs down.

      • Kroxx@lemm.eeEnglish
        13·
        17 days ago

        US backs down

        Does the US back down? We definitely double down

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          255·
          17 days ago

          yeah, The US backs down.

          they backed down in Vietnam, they backed down in iran, somalia, they backed down investigating the Saudi Arabian terrorists in 9/11(which is almost all of them), and the list goes on.

          the US is not often gracious about backing down or wise enough to back down prudently, but they do back down.

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.worldEnglish
      149·
      17 days ago

      Because it’s Russia advocating to lift the embargo which was put in place because of the Cuban missle crisis right?

      • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2911·
        17 days ago

        Since the 1960s, the United States has systematically punished the Cuban people through a stringent blockade on its economy for having declared and built a political and economic model different from the one advocated and directed by the United States.

        • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
          173·
          17 days ago

          It’s not about the economic model or the US wouldn’t be buddies with Vietnam. This is about United Fruit (now Chiquita), this is about Bacardi, all expropriated without a dime of compensation, and rightfully so for using de facto slave labour under the watchful eye of US-backed dictators, administrating the island as a de facto colony.

          The Cuban revolution wasn’t socialist, it was one for independence. The guerillas, once in power, were eyeing vaguely DemSoc politics and a good relationship with the US. The US answered with the Bay of Pigs invasion etc, driving Cuba into the arms of the Soviet Union and acquiring an unhealthy habit of authoritarianism and non-industrialisation in the process, becoming dependent on the block overpaying for their sugar, them underpaying for oil, fertiliser, etc.

          The difference to Vietnam? Vietnam was a French colony. The US got over the domino theory which made them wage war there, they never got over the expropriations and losing control over the colony, worst of all, driving it into the hands of their mortal enemy. To relent on the sanctions would mean reflecting on all that and I don’t think the US is politically capable of admitting such a gigantic mistake, both humanitarian and strategic, to themselves.

          In a parallel universe, with saner heads in Washington prevailing, Cuba would now be negotiating alongside Puerto Rico about the details of US statehood.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            17 days ago

            The Cuban revolution wasn’t socialist, it was one for independence. The guerillas, once in power, were eyeing vaguely DemSoc politics and a good relationship with the US. The US answered with the Bay of Pigs invasion etc, driving Cuba into the arms of the Soviet Union and acquiring an unhealthy habit of authoritarianism and non-industrialisation in the process, becoming dependent on the block overpaying for their sugar, them underpaying for oil, fertiliser, etc.

            This is somewhat inaccurate. The guerrillas, once in power, were a broad coalition, but the Castro brothers and Che consolidated power under a ML-leaning regime, and despite claims otherwise to some of their less ML compatriots, this seems to have been the plan more or less from the start. Several of the revolution’s leaders were executed for not being ML-leaning. The Bay of Pigs invasion occurred only after that.

            This is not to say, mind you, that US hostility didn’t drive Cuba into the arms of the Soviets - it very much did. But that hostility was before the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the idea of a demsoc Cuba was dashed by the very men who freed Cuba from Batista.

            • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netEnglish
              5·
              17 days ago

              despite claims otherwise to some of their less ML compatriots, this seems to have been the plan more or less from the start. Several of the revolution’s leaders were executed for not being ML-leaning.

              Confirmed by William Alexander Morgan, who became disillusioned with Castro, and was then executed despite how much he’d helped the revolution.

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                8·
                17 days ago

                Seems like he was executed for leading a rebellion against Castro’s forces. It wasn’t just because he wasn’t communist enough.

                • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netEnglish
                  4·
                  17 days ago

                  He was charged with planning to lead them, though I’m not sure if that was actually true or just a charge to slap on him before the execution. He did smuggle arms for the counter-revolutionaries, but only after his comrades and friends were being arrested for counter-revolutionary activities.