An economic war: the truth about
the "embargo" on Cuba
By RICARDO ALARCON*
"To bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government"
- U.S. State Department, April 6, 1960
HAVANA (6 October 2006) - A FEW weeks from now, the UN General Assembly will pass, with practical unanimity, a new resolution, the fifteenth, condemning the blockade on Cuba, which Washington tries to describe as barely an "embargo." The United States Government will try to justify its policy once again without success. They have been doing this for almost half a century now, concealing the truth behind their fabrications and lies.
The truth is, however, contained in documents that were kept secret by Washington until 1991. More than an embargo or blockade, it is in fact an act of "economic warfare," as the then secretary of state, Christian Herter, said in 1959. Economic warfare that began with the triumph of the Revolution in January of 1959 and it is still in force today, a war which has always had the same genocidal purpose: to bring about hunger, misery and desperation among the people of Cuba.
Dictator Fulgencio Batista and his main accomplices plundered the Republic's treasury and upon fleeing Cuba in January of that year they took with them more than $424 million which came to rest in the United States and form the economic basis of a mafia often hailed by the U.S. press as "successful businessmen" of Miami. For Cuba the situation was critical and Washington knew it. The Department of State described it as such, saying in February 1959:
"The serious threat to the stability of the Cuba peso which results from the fact that following the departure of the Batista administration it was determined that the currency reserve of the country is depleted," [is] something which, "would tax the governing abilities of any of the best leaders."
The Central Bank of Cuba sent a team of experts to Washington to seek a modest loan that would alleviate such a crisis. The issue was analysed by the National Security Council on February 12, 1959. The decision was unequivocal: they would listen to the Cubans but offer them nothing at all. They didn't grant any kind of loan. They didn't even promise to look into the matter. Needless to say, not one cent of the money stolen from the Cuban people was ever returned.
The dispossession of Cuban bank reserves, which constitutes a blatant act of economic aggression, took place long before any revolutionary measure was adopted on the Island (the first being the Law of Agrarian reform, passed on May 17 of that year).
On March 26, 1959, the National Security Council also discussed the Cuban situation. At this meeting the CIA's director, Allen Dulles, said that: "it was quite possible that the U.S. Congress would do something which would affect the sale of Cuban sugar in the U.S." Depriving Cuba of its main source of income, sugar exports to the U.S. market, would become a recurrent theme of Washington's secret meetings before, long before, relationships with the Soviet Union were re-established and before socialism was proclaimed to be the Revolution's goal. They did that when sugar was still being grown on large landed estates and processed in factories -- many of which were U.S. owned -- that had not been expropriated and were still in the hands of the Island's oligarchy and foreign companies.
U.S. Government officials were aware of the consequences of such action. A report from the Department of State acknowledged that: "If Cuba were deprived of its quota privilege, the sugar industry would promptly suffer an abrupt decline, causing widespread further unemployment. The large numbers of people forced out of work would begin to go hungry."
But they weren't just talking about sugar: "Isf we were to cut the Cubans off from their fuel supply, the effect would be devastating on them within a month or six weeks."
Nobody in Washington claimed to have been deceived. They knew that the actions taken against the Revolution would cause pain and suffering to all the Cuban people. They did it with premeditation and full knowledge of the effect, converting the act of genocide into a malicious political instrument. An analysis from this same Department, dated April 6, 1960 and approved with the signature of Assistant Secretary, Roy Rubottom, offers us explicit proof of this policy.
In this analysis it is flatly affirmed:
"The majority of Cubans support Castro. The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. It follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. It should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government."
Note that they acknowledged they should act in a manner "as adroit and inconspicuous as possible," something that fits with criminal behaviour, and not just any crime, but rather one that has been particularly condemned by humankind: the crime of genocide clearly defined by the Geneva Convention of 1948 as any attempt to cause total or partial damage to any human group. What is this if it isn't precisely that: an attempt at "bringing about hunger and desperation" among all Cubans?
It is probably the most prolonged act of genocide in history. It began before the majority of Cubans alive today were born, meaning that they have spent their entire lives under the blockade.
Soon it will be condemned again by humankind as a whole. Once again the U.S. administration will reveal its arrogance and ignore the demand being made worldwide. When will it end?
NB: All quotes are from the official documents compiled in the book published by the Department of State: Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960 Volume VI Cuba, United States Goverment Printing Office, Washington, 1991.
* Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada is Cuba's Vice President and President of its National Assembly.
Comments to : email@example.com Copyright New Media Services Inc. © 2006. The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of shunpiking magazine or New Media Publications. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. Copyright of written and photographic and art work remains with the creators.