Cuba’s foreign minister pulled no punches at a press conference in Havana today: To derail next week’s UN General Assembly resolution calling for an end to the embargo on Cuba, the U.S. is engaging in “vote-change diplomacy” with countries—change your vote or face higher tariffs, visa refusals for officials’ family members, and even U.S. support for your country’s opposition. (Source: Al Jazeera, published today at 22:51)
The resolution has passed by a wide margin every year since 1992; the United States is the only country that refuses to accept it. This year’s vote is scheduled for October 27–28.
Cuba singled out Rubio and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Waltz, saying they had “personally led the charge” in pressuring countries for months. Washington had not responded by the time of publication.
To me, the most performative-art aspect of this is that after 64 years of embargo, the U.S. has been “humiliated” by the entire UN General Assembly year after year, and just kept taking it. Now it’s even putting “vote in favor and we’ll hold up your visas” on the table—is this diplomacy, or a street-corner protection racket?
What’s even more outrageous is that Waltz himself admitted he’s lobbying European countries to change their votes, supposedly because “Ukraine accuses Cuba of withholding the pay of mercenaries fighting on the front lines of the Russia-Ukraine war.”
That’s quite a slick chain of logic: Russia and Ukraine are at war → Cubans take part → therefore Cuba deserves to be embargoed.
Lu Xun had a phrase for this: “using a big banner as a tiger’s skin.” Here, the banner is the UN, the skin is Ukraine, and the tiger is still the same old tiger.
So here’s the question: Next week, will the U.S. once again be the “only country in the room voting against” the resolution, or will it manage to push its allies into abstaining too? Which way are you betting?
#美古关系 #United Nations
#古巴 #U.S. sanctions
The resolution has passed by a wide margin every year since 1992; the United States is the only country that refuses to accept it. This year’s vote is scheduled for October 27–28.
Cuba singled out Rubio and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Waltz, saying they had “personally led the charge” in pressuring countries for months. Washington had not responded by the time of publication.
To me, the most performative-art aspect of this is that after 64 years of embargo, the U.S. has been “humiliated” by the entire UN General Assembly year after year, and just kept taking it. Now it’s even putting “vote in favor and we’ll hold up your visas” on the table—is this diplomacy, or a street-corner protection racket?
What’s even more outrageous is that Waltz himself admitted he’s lobbying European countries to change their votes, supposedly because “Ukraine accuses Cuba of withholding the pay of mercenaries fighting on the front lines of the Russia-Ukraine war.”
That’s quite a slick chain of logic: Russia and Ukraine are at war → Cubans take part → therefore Cuba deserves to be embargoed.
Lu Xun had a phrase for this: “using a big banner as a tiger’s skin.” Here, the banner is the UN, the skin is Ukraine, and the tiger is still the same old tiger.
So here’s the question: Next week, will the U.S. once again be the “only country in the room voting against” the resolution, or will it manage to push its allies into abstaining too? Which way are you betting?
#美古关系 #United Nations
#古巴 #U.S. sanctions