440

The world prepares to vote against the US blockade on Cuba (peoplesdispatch.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by rimu@piefed.social to c/world@lemmy.world

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 125 points 3 weeks 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.works 20 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Kroxx@lemm.ee 13 points 3 weeks ago

US backs down

Does the US back down? We definitely double down

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 weeks 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.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 120 points 3 weeks ago

There is no blockade of Cuba. It's an embargo. There are no military ships blowing up anyone trying to trade with Cuba.

[-] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 22 points 3 weeks ago

Surprised you're not being downvoted for calling out this disinformation, usually it's all the rage on Lemmy

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 71 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Why is it normalized that one country can block/embargo/complicate/whatever-you-want-to-call-it another country to the point of severely affecting the lives of millions of people .... for what? because one country disagrees with the politics of another country?

If countries were able to do that, there would be no trade anywhere in the world.

Yet it's been completely normalized for the past six decades between the US and Cuba.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 57 points 3 weeks ago

Because the international order is based on economic and military might, not any sort of higher ideal or codified rules.

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 weeks ago

So jungle rules then ..... ooga booga ... just with better vocabulary.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 weeks ago

Well... Yeah. Who do you think would enforce any "rules"? And how would they?

load more comments (22 replies)

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago

Countries have complicated trade for centuries. Free trade is a modern exception, not the historical rule.

And in principle, countries have as much right to restrict trade with Cuba as they do with Russia and Israel. It's the same principle that allows people to call for boycotts of Amazon and Starbucks. All of these things can affect the lives of millions, in an effort to bring about political change.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Ah, well...

[-] wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

The US also has about 750 military bases (not including black sites) scattered across 80 countries around the world

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 8 points 3 weeks ago

There is more countries with CVs than i thought. Also Brazil and Thailand? I wasn't aware they had any sizeable navy to begin with.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] mx_smith@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Some of those have been decommissioned. I know for sure the first one in the second column has, as I was stationed in that one.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago

It isn't that it's normalized. It is simply that no one can do anything about it. So, they voice their disagreement.

[-] Syntha@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago

Why shouldn't a country be able to decide not to trade with another country?

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 59 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Blockading Cuba has never made sense. If communism is an inferior failed system that can't compete with the freedom of Capitalism (cue heavenly sunbeams and angel choirs) why not leave Cuba alone and let nature take its course?

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 50 points 3 weeks ago

Noted socialist (/s) Hillary Clinton advocated for that very thing.

The real reason behind the embargo at this point is that it makes a small but important voting bloc of Cuban expats in Florida happy.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 28 points 3 weeks ago

That's really it. The start and end of why the embargo is even still there. It hurts both Cuba and (to a lesser extent) the United States. It benefits nobody, but there's some loudmouth Cuban expats who want you to believe Batista didn't have it coming.

[-] banshee@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Yep - it's one of the reasons Miami sees so much Trump support.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

This is why you get conspiracy theories that it was Cuba that assassinated President Kennedy: how else can we justify such extended sanctions when all the participants are long gone

[-] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago

There was a somewhat understandable reason initially; when the embargo was first started, it was because Cuba allowed the UUSR to use it as a forward base for missiles so they could reach the mainland US, which, understandably, the US wasn't very happy about

But ever since the fall of the USSR it's been absurd

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago

I can't believe they're still trying to "contain the communism" of Cuba

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Screenshot_20241031-032931_Firefox

[-] wesker 36 points 3 weeks ago

Legalize the import of Cuban cigars, and I will personally bring Cuba back into an age of prosperity.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

You can bring them back in your luggage - limit is maybe 100 cigars or $1000 worth. Something like that.

[-] wesker 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm 99% certain Trump administration put the kibosh on that. At least that was what I was told when I traveled out of country in 2023, and wanted to see if I could bring some back.

In 2016, the Obama administration eased some restrictions, allowing U.S. travelers to bring Cuban cigars into the country for personal use. However, this was short-lived. In 2020, the Trump administration re-imposed strict regulations, re-banning Cuban cigars—whether bought in Cuba or through third countries. Current Regulations:

As of now, it is illegal to import Cuban cigars into the U.S. This includes bringing cigars bought in other countries that originated from Cuba. Any attempt to bring Cuban cigars into the U.S. can result in serious legal consequences, including confiscation and potential fines.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 13 points 3 weeks ago

Why won't the rest of the world just ignore the blockade together?

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

When I was a kid, sweden did (IDK if they still do) so we had Cuba Cola there :-)

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 weeks ago

is this that kind of vote the us can always overturn for some reason?

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

There are two tiers of UN. There’s the “I’m not a colonizer that’s willing to nuke people” tier, where the strongest outcome is “sternly worded email”; and then there’s the UN Permanent Security Council tier where you get an absolute veto power that cannot be questioned. The wiki is a very educating read

Edit: please tell me what part I am incorrect about if you disagree so hard that you downvote me out of the discussion.

[-] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago

Isn't it just the permanent members of the UNSC with veto power?

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago

Correct, I could have been more specific.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

We were in Cuba one year when they had the vote. I had never heard of it, but it was all over the news there so i thought it actually meant something.

[-] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Being of Cuban descent, I really hope that this is the first step towards repealing that embargo once and forma all. ¡Vida y patria!

load more comments

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024

440 points (94.5% liked)

World News

39099 readers

3697 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.