[Article from Green Left Weekly] One Last Favor: Australia, Cuba, and the United States

by Tim Anderson
Green Left Weekly (radical newspaper) via WorldPress.org
New South Wales, Australia
October 17, 2007

One of the last favors the Howard government in Australia will be asked to perform for the Bush administration will be to attempt to soften the crushing diplomatic defeat the United States suffers every year at the United Nations over its ongoing economic blockade of Cuba.

A United Nations vote is expected on a motion by Cuba at the end of October. In 2006, the motion passed 183 to four (United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau) with one abstention. Australia voted for the motion, but not before an unsuccessful attempt at an amendment that sought to criticize Cuba.

In breach of a range of international laws—from telecommunications to trade to the Genocide Convention—the United States has blockaded Cuba for nearly half a century, as part of a campaign to overthrow the elected government and the Cuban constitution.

The United States blockade, an executive act of President John F. Kennedy (after a failure to agree on compensation terms over the nationalization of United States companies), was set in United States law by the 1996 Helms Burton Act.

Under this "trading with the enemy" law, United States companies are banned from trading with Cuba and United States citizens cannot visit Cuba without United States government permission. United States citizens are regularly fined for visiting Cuba, or being caught with Cuban cigars. Cuba receives more than 2 million tourists every year, but very few are United States citizens.

Cuba says the economic blockade has cost it at least $89 billion in damages, denied important medical equipment, blocked scientific and cultural exchange, stolen the assets of or intimidated trading companies and constitutes a form of genocide, designed quite simply to re-colonize Cuba. The blockade has been accompanied by terrorist actions (including one C.I.A.-backed aircraft bombing) that have cost the lives of more than 3,000 Cubans.

The United States says its measures only constitute an "embargo," that the Cuban government alone is responsible for any economic problems and that this "embargo" is a bilateral matter that does not concern any other state.

However, United States subsidiaries in other countries are also banned from dealing with Cuba and this has widened the net, since the wave of takeovers and mergers during the 1990's and 2000's. Under United States law, technology with more than 10 percent United States content cannot be traded with Cuba, regardless of the nationality of ownership. Vessels carrying goods from Cuba cannot enter United States ports. And even the families of business people who trade with Cuba may be (and have been) denied United States visas.

In 2007, two Australian banks were drawn into this campaign because of their United States shareholdings and operations. In February, ANZ said it was ending all transactions with Cuba, to ensure compliance with United States law. In September, the National Australia Bank was fined $100,000 by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (O.F.A.C.) of the United States Treasury, for a number of small transactions that allowed transfers to Cuban interests. One of these was a payment of $452 to a Canadian credit card owned by a Cuban citizen. Banks are generally "apolitical" when it comes to business, but in this case, Washington calls the shots.

The Howard government has consistently voted in favor of anti-blockade motions at the United Nations. "Free trade," after all, is a major element of Australian foreign policy, as successive Australian governments have tried to expand their exports of agricultural goods, especially to the United States.

However, the practice of Australian "free trade" is a much dirtier affair. In November 2006, the Australian ambassador to the United Nations, Robert Hill, moved an amendment to the Cuban motion, seeking to add a clause that called on Cuba to "release unconditionally all political prisoners" and to respect human rights treaties. The Australian role only emerged because even the most pro-United States Latin American governments would not agree to take up the task. Hill's amendment was roundly defeated and the Cuban motion was passed overwhelmingly.

South African diplomat Sivu Maqungo, on behalf of the Group of 77 (a coalition of Third World countries), supported the Cuban motion "because this relentless and unilateral action has caused untold suffering to the people of Cuba." The motion was a way to exert pressure on United States actions that are "contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, the United Nations charter and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among states."

What did the Australian "human rights" amendment have to do with a motion over the United States trade blockade of Cuba? Very little. Opposition to the United States blockade has steadily grown at the United Nations, and it was clear the amendment would fail. However, the United States wanted to save face and needed "allies" to pretend a little legitimacy.

The major "human rights" accusation the United States aims at Cuba concerns political prisoners. Cuba does have several dozen political prisoners, but almost all have been convicted of taking money from United States government programs that aim to overthrow the Cuban government and constitution. The United States claims that these United States-paid agents have special privileges as "independent journalists" or part of "civil society."

The United States also pretends that Cuba does not have elections, because the United States-funded groups are banned from contesting, and because the constitution embeds socialist principles. In fact, Cuban national elections are in October.

After Hill's motion failed, Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque said that Australia "does not have the moral authority to attempt to refer to the human rights situation in Cuba." Perez Roque called Australia a "lackey" and "accomplice" in United States wars of imperialism.

Indeed. Robert Hill personally, as defense minister, directed Australian bombing raids and missile strikes in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was personally responsible for the slaughter of many thousands of innocent Iraqis. Hill also hid his knowledge of the torture operations at Abu Ghraib for over a year, and backed the closure of Al Jazeera's Baghdad television station. Hill's colleague, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, argued for the invasion of Iraq on the basis that support for the United States-led war could benefit "Australia's commercial position in Iraq." These are better credentials for war criminals than defenders of human rights.

Nevertheless, Hill feigned innocence at the United Nations, saying that "the price of speaking up and asking for nothing more than [what] is reasonable is to be abused by the Cuban minister with false allegations and offensive language."

Stay tuned for the next installment of the Howard government's spirited defense of "human rights" at the United Nations. The next anti-blockade motion is scheduled for late October. With Howard's defeat looming in the imminent Australian elections, Washington might call on one last favor.

Latino Insurgent Entertainment: La Tigresa del Oriente

To my brothers and sisters of the great country of El Peru... What is this?!? I am speechless in many ways. I am an open minded and thoughtful individual, but this video is testing my limits. Please help me expand my cultural horizons by placing this "artistic expression" in context. Thank you.



Oh, before anyone gets on the "my-people-are-better-than-your-people" tip, lets all concede that there is some of this in everyone's culture.

Que viva my gente!!!, even if I don't always get them.

[Latino Insurgent Analysis] The Approaching Chaos: War Against Iran

Analysis by Michael A. Deliz

Everyday that passes, it seems more and more likely that the United States will unilaterally, although with a possible coalition, declare war upon Iran. This move, compounded by the invasion of Iraq, will result in a chain reaction that has already begun to take shape and which the American mainstream media has chosen to diminish in severity or ignore altogether.

The Drums of War:
It should first be noted that Iran is not in any way like Iraq. Where Iraq was controlled by a brutal dictatorship, and whose people and army were woefully demoralized. Iran is very much the regional power that others wish to be. With a government that is largely supported by its people and a military tradition that is unequaled by any neighboring power, Iran will put up a fight.

Of course all things being equal the United States could probably defeat Iran in under a week. But all things are not equal. Iran has a number of serious advantages that can help it maintain itself in a prolonged conflict. Unlike the majority of Iraqis which lived under a hostile government which did not represent their ethnic diversity, Iran does have a representative government which does assume responsibility for its constituency. Iran's parliament is not a rubber stamp as it is portrayed and is often at odds with the presidency and the ayatollah's decisions. It's parliament also includes among its members representatives of the country's ethnic minorities and women. To add to that Iran has a progressively-minded reform movement that, although at odds with the ayatollah, has been successful in bringing about changes in governance and public policy. This means that the Iranian people will not simply sit idly by while their government is attacked, and any American who believes otherwise will pay for it in the blood of America's youth.

Geography is also a factor here that cannot be ignored. Unlike Iraq which is almost entirely flat, Iran is a maze of deserts and snowcapped mountains and one which is three times larger in size than the entire country of Iraq with three times the population (roughly 70 million people to Iraq's 25 million). See the picture below:



The Iraqi Insurgency:
Despite assurances by President G.W. Bush that the Iraqi insurgency is in its last days, the truth is that it is not. Attacks upon U.S. troops are a daily occurrence which have only diminished because American security outposts around Iraq are increasingly being manned by Iraqi security forces. But declaring war against Iran will mean that the the Iraqi insurgency will confront a weaker American military throughout Iraq as American troops are redeployed to the Iranian front, leaving only a skeleton force, most likely bunkered into the Green Zone in Baghdad.

In other words, American troops will face fire from both sides of the Iran-Iraq border , and will be forced to rely on the increasingly temperamental and untrustworthy Iraqi Security forces to cover its flank. If Blackwater and other such mercenary groups are kept out of Iraq as the Iraqi government has asked and as the U.S. Congress is moving to support, the United States will be forced to call upon troops of other nations or move towards a draft to bolster its troop numbers. The first will the hard, the second will be politically impossible.

Thus Iraq will become increasingly unstable once war against Iran begins.

The Rise of Kurdistan:
Straddling both Iran and Iraq (and Turkey and Syria) is the region of Kurdistan. The Kurds, for almost 100 years have been asking for an independent and sovereign nation state to call their own. The United States encouraged this sentiment somewhat after the 1990's Gulf War by setting up the Kurdish Safe Zone in northern Iraq, which in 1992 formed its own autonomous government. After the invasion of Iraq, the United States bent over backwards to try and keep the independence movement in check by giving the region a measure of self government from the new Iraqi government.

The problem is that for the Kurds, history is finally moving in the right direction. the more unstable Iraq becomes the more local power and control the autonomous government claims. If that instability continues to increase the Kurdish people will not only see an opportunity for independence, but will rightfully claim the right of self-preservation against that instability spreading into their region.

In this way, not only would a U.S. war against Iran create the opportunity of a lifetime for Kurdish independence, it would also allow for the integration and annexation of Iranian Kurdistan, if the Iranian government collapses under an American invasion. If that series of events occurs there will be no stopping the development of a Greater Kurdistan whose people will begin asking for the full integration of all Kurdish areas under foreign control, namely those in Turkey and Syria (See map below).



The Turkish & Syrian Reaction:
The Turkish reaction to the rise of Kurdistan will be swift and bloody, make no mistake about that. Turkey's current domestic and foreign policies both make complete their perception that an independent Kurdistan is a threat to the Turkish Republic. This week, Turkey's Parliament gave permission for its armed forces to enact a military campaign against Kurdish rebels, despite opposition from the United States. Turkey is fully aware that such an incursion into Iraqi territory will not only put it at odds with the U.S. and its NATO allies, but will surely cost it admission into the European Union, but from Turkey's point of view stopping an emergent Kurdistan in its tracks is more important.

The issue is that Turkey's population is 20% Kurdish and Kurds dominate much of the southeastern provinces. For turkey the idea of an internal rebellion and the possible loss of part of its territory is enough to throw caution to the wind. In turn, if the United States and Europe turn its back to Turkey, Turkey will look for other allies, definitely in Syria and possibly in Russia.

Syria, however, will be a minor factor, their internal situation is much too fragile to directly get involved to stop the reunification of Kurdistan. For that very reason, however, they cannot simply accept it, thus Syria will simply support Turkey's every decision regarding Kurdistan. And keep in mind that Syria and Iran have a loose but very real mutual-protection pact which will certainly come into effect if Israel decides to join the American war against Iran.

The Palestinian Street:
Any action taken by the United States in the Middle East resonates in Israel. If the United States attacks Iran, Israel will follow protocol and raise its internal security measures in self defense. The weight of this heightened vigilance will primarily fall upon the Palestinian population. This will result in the further trampling of human rights, which will relight the fire under Hamas to carry on attacks against the Israeli population and its government. Hamas has ties to Iran and is suspected of being financed by the Iranian military, thus any attack against Iran will be surely followed by a Hamas attack against Israel.

The security crackdown by Israel will also finally destroy Fatah, Hamas' political rival and the more moderate of the two organizations. Fatah's open public profile will also make it an easier target for Israeli security sweeps, leaving the Palestinian people with only Hamas to rely upon for protection. The demise of Fatah will also allow for Lebanon's Hezbollah organization to claim solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinian people and solidify its strained relationship with Syria. Which Syria, by its relationship with Iran, will clandestinely support both organizations.

The Central Asian Question:
In the mean time, Afghanistan's government, which mostly operates from bunkered compounds, will be severely destabilized by a war against Iran. As American resources are pulled into the Iranian conflict, Taliban forces will increase their insurgency against the government of Hamid Karzai. Karzai in 2005 signed a strategic partnership agreement with the United States, making it a definite member of any coalition that moves against Iran.

Unfortunately for Karzai, the public wave of public discontent may topple his government and return the country into the hands of the Pashtun people where the Taliban main source of support is found. At worst Afghanistan will fall into utter chaos, Somalia-style, as each local tribal leader vies for control in the power vacuum. At best, Afghanistan will fall into civil war with tribal leaders banding together, under the same groupings as the Nortern Alliance and the Taliban represented before 9/11.

Pakistan will be another favored staging area for U.S. troops, but the Musharaf government is already in political thin ice with its people, so apart from being a possible launch pad for an assault into the interior of Iran, Musharaf will do everything possible to keep his troops out of the fight. It should also be noted that Pakistani military leaders are very unhappy with the secret nuclear pact signed by the U.S. President and India, whose details are unknown but include the transfer of American nuclear technology to Pakistan's rival.

The Incidentals:
President Putin of Russia recently declared that the Caspian Sea is off limits as a staging area for an attack against Iran and the Caspian states have signed an agreement to prohibit use of their countries for the same purpose. This is a difficult development to surmount for the United States because in the past few years the U.S. has acquired space in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan possibly in preparation for an attack upon Iran. This means that if these Caspian states stick to the agreement, or are made to stick to the agreement by Russian influence, the Caspian Sea will become refuge for Iran's government should it be forced to abandon the country and the capacity of the United States to surround the country will be severely undercut.

Russia itself will not go to the aid of Iran, but will surely keep control of the Caspian by air and sea to ensure the U.S. does not transgress into Russia's sphere of influence. Putin does not want a military confrontation with the United States, but he is betting the United States wants a confrontation with Russia even less. Besides, for the past 10 months the Russian air force has made it a point to show off its capabilities by running Cold War Era drills that have included incursions into British airspace. Putin may not want a confrontation, but is willing to have one to reclaim the military respect his country once had.

China is also a variable in this whole mess. An attack on Iran by the United States will severely harm China's chances of ever tapping into the Caspian Sea oil reserves, which Iran has been negotiating with them. China will not go to war against the United States, but they are conscious of the fact that they can make matters very difficult for the United States in a variety of ways economically. But that sword is double-edged, and it is China's trump card of last resort.

France's Prime Minister Sarkozy, has vowed to go to war against Iran if it develops its nuclear capabilities. This is probably a bluff, but if it isn't, Sarkozy will have a very short political career. The French people, although ridiculed in the United States, are often passionately anti-American and when the first French soldier dies in Iran, Sarkozy will be blamed personally. More likely is that any French aid to the U.S. will be logistic in nature rather than truly military. There is of course France's Foreign Legion which has been borrowed in occasion by the United States, but the numbers that would add are minuscule compared to the task and Sarkozy wouldn't be able to claim a true French involvement. Besides Sarkozy's announcement was not positively received by the French people and he is probably looking for a way to wiggle out of any commitments to live up to it by now.

Globally, it should be noted that nobody is going to shed a tear if the Iranian government falls to a U.S. invasion. Still the reception of American diplomats will be increasingly cold around the world as peoples all over the world will see nothing else in these American actions than a rogue war-mongering empire whose president will stop at nothing until the world bows at his feet. And nothing would make China, Russia, and the European Union happier, than an increased anti-American sentiment for them to exploit.

Cuba at the United Nations: Speech by Felipe Pérez Roque

Recorded on September 26, 2007 - Speech by Felipe Pérez Roque before the General Assembly of the United Nations. [I have chosen the Spanish version (without translation) because I always find the translations to be somewhat filtered in emotion and content, nevertheless for those who would rather hear it in English I have included the links at the bottom of this post]

Part I in Spanish

Part II in Spanish


Part I with English translation
Part II with English translation