In a demonstration that the “big stick” diplomacy never went out of style, Washington has dec combine two classic instruments of its foreign policy—economic punishment and naval bullying—to pressure Cuba and force a “regime change.”
The new package of measures, formalized through a presidential executive order (EO), activates the blockade of any property under U.S. jurisdiction belonging to individuals or entities operating in Cuba’s energy, defense, mining, and financial services sectors, as well as in any other areas determined in the future by the Departments of the Treasury and State.
The provision takes effect without a notice period or grace period, which increases legal uncertainty for economic operators.
Undoubtedly, the most disruptive component of the executive order lies in its extraterritorial clause: foreign financial institutions that facilitate a “significant transaction” on behalf of sanctioned Cuban entities will be exposed to disconnection from the U.S. financial system.
Likewise, it denies entry into the United States, whether as immigrants or non-immigrants, to foreigners who do not meet one or more of the criteria established in the executive order; even being an adult family member of a person designated under this order is punishable.
The imposition of sanctions outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council contravenes the UN Charter; experts from that international organization have repeatedly condemned U.S. coercive measures against Cuba, describing them as “a serious violation of international law.”
The real impact of these measures is felt in the daily lives of the civilian population; the lack of electricity has forced the postponement of thousands of surgical procedures and the interruption of cancer treatments, while the population suffers from shortages that are not more severe thanks to the efficiency of the Cuban system and its sense of justice and equality.
On the other hand, just a few hours after signing the executive order, the U.S. president declared before a business audience that he would “take control of Cuba almost immediately” and added that he would station the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln about a hundred meters off the Cuban coast; then, according to him, the islanders would say, “Thank you very much, we surrender.”
In diplomatic terms, these words represent a threat to use force against a sovereign state—a violation of Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter—and evoke the era of the Platt Amendment.
Thus, the sequence of decisions adopted since January—the cutoff of oil supplies, secondary sanctions against banks, and now the threat of military intervention—outlines a very dangerous and absurd escalation against the largest of the Antilles.
Meanwhile, the international community has reacted to the escalation; the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP) issued a statement of condemnation and urged Washington to “prioritize the path of respectful dialogue, on equal terms, without threats or conditions.”
One must ask: why stubbornly insist on a failed policy when the evidence accumulated over six decades of the blockade suggests that economic coercion and the threat of force, far from bringing about political change, reinforce the internal cohesion of Cuban society and its resolve to resist.
Sources: The White House (gov), State Gov. (U.S. Department of State), RTVE, La Razón, DW, TeleSUR, ABC.
