Overwhelming UN vote says US blockade of Cuba needs to end

a reply to: voyger2

Hmmm...i thought the USA and Cuba were getting all friendly of late?

If Cuba is now a friend, why doesn't the USA just decide to lift the blockade instead of having the UN vote to force it to?

a reply to: dragonridr

I agree with nearly everything you posted. But this UN vote is pretty much just symbolic, so they couldn't enforce it even if the US & Israel didn't vote against it. This is the 24th straight year the UN General Assembly has voted to condemn the embargo. I think it's only "news" because Pres Obama finally eased some of the other policies against Cuba.

originally posted by: dragonridr
At the time US investment in Cuba was heavy I read one article that put the figure at 7 billion in stolen assets. [..] Until the 7 billion is reimbursed I doubt US companies will be allowed to invest in Cuba.

Don't want to derail the thread, but, please provide support for the above claim.

originally posted by: dragonridr
As for the vote simple the US does not recognize the general assemblies right to determine trade restrictions for the USA.

But can the US determine the right for trade of other countries? So, how come other have to recognize trade restrictions impose by US?

originally posted by: dragonridr
This is what's called a recommendation vote and has no enforcement power. But it is not the UN general assemblies job to decide if a country should or should not have trade restrictions.

Why it hasn't no power? Please provide support for your claim.
So, isn't UN job to decide if another country should be free to trade with others, even if its agaisnt the will of two nations?

originally posted by: dragonridr
The only UN body with this power would be the international court.

Isn't this decision the base to proceed to International Court if US don't comply?

originally posted by: dragonridr
And even under UN charter they can't override the US Congress on trade matters what they can do is negotiate between the two.

But UN (in all it's powers, security council, ect) can override blockades imposed from a country to other, isn't it true?

a reply to: voyger2

But UN (in all it's powers, security council, ect) can override blockades imposed from a country to other, isn't it true?

If the assembly has the will, in theory, yes.

But more likely is the imposition of sanctions of one type or another.

a reply to: voyger2

The UN cannot overide a countries ability to set trade restrictions. They can recommend they be removed but as far as enforcement only the security council can enforce UN mandates and only if a member is willing to do so. For example removing Sadam in Iraq failure to comply to the agreement meant that a UN member could enforce UN mandates if they chose to do so. But the UN has no enforce ant capabilities of their own. And with US having veto in security council just like the Russians used in Ukraine the UN cannot do anything.

As for the money here is an article tells about the companies such as coca cola that had their assets stolen in Cuba.
www.bostonglobe.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Thank you.
I was reading a litle more about US embargo to Cuba, here, I thought US was also restricting trade of other countries with Cuba. It seems that's not the case:

The United States does not block Cuba's trade with third parties: other countries are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. domestic laws, such as the Cuban Democracy Act (although, in theory, foreign countries that trade with Cuba could be penalised by the U.S., which has been condemned as an "extraterritorial" measure that contravenes "the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention in their internal affairs and freedom of trade and navigation as paramount to the conduct of international affairs."]).

Cuba can, and does, conduct international trade with many third-party countries;[9] Cuba has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 1995

Well, taking in consideration what Obama did in the last weeks, its a litle ridiculous opposing this resolution. At least they coul abstain...

Well thank you again.

Meh...it's the UN. Who cares what they think?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Meh...it's the UN. Who cares what they think?

IKR? Because 'MERKA!

Just because we disagree with people in the houses next to us on our cozy American blocks over sh# like what food to eat, what to believe, how to raise family & run homes, etc doesn't mean we get to be dicks to them & blockage THEM, do we? Same should apply to country neighbors. You know, same idea of sovereign nation and alla that shiz.

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: yuppa

Please provide support for that statment.

Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.

Since the embargo is NOT MILITARY in nature it fall under THE ABOVE.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Just because we disagree with people in the houses next to us on our cozy American blocks over sh# like what food to eat, what to believe, how to raise family & run homes, etc doesn't mean we get to be dicks to them & blockage THEM, do we? Same should apply to country neighbors. You know, same idea of sovereign nation and alla that shiz.

A sovereign nation has the right to trade with whomever they want or don't want to, just like I'm allowed to ignore and ostracize a neighbor if the way they live contradicts my values, morals, ethics, puts my children at risk, etc.

But much with everything in life, I think that private companies should be able to choose their trade partners, not a federal government. But if the fed govt wants to refrain from trade, so be it.

But I think you misconstrued my point--the UN should have no sway over what a sovereign nation does, regardless of how many members votes against their actions.

The UN is a pointless body and a waste of time. It promotes the idea of alliances and allegiances, and I think both contribute to the war-hungry state that many parts of the world constantly find itself engulfed by.

That double standard rule book rears its head with Cuba again. The childish attitude gone on for decades, "The world is our ball and Cuba can't play".

Somebody kick the US out of the sandbox.

originally posted by: intrptr
That double standard rule book rears its head with Cuba again. The childish attitude gone on for decades, "The world is our ball and Cuba can't play".

Somebody kick the US out of the sandbox.

Be hard when the is owns the sand box and can decide who they want to let play in it.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Someone should tell America that the USSR does not exist any more .

And yet communism retains it's curious grip on "certain people".

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: voyger2

Hmmm...i thought the USA and Cuba were getting all friendly of late?

If Cuba is now a friend, why doesn't the USA just decide to lift the blockade instead of having the UN vote to force it to?

Why don't they arrest the Castros for all the crimes they've committed? Just the fact that they tried to start WW3 should be enough by itself.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: voyger2

Hmmm...i thought the USA and Cuba were getting all friendly of late?

If Cuba is now a friend, why doesn't the USA just decide to lift the blockade instead of having the UN vote to force it to?

Why don't they arrest the Castros for all the crimes they've committed? Just the fact that they tried to start WW3 should be enough by itself.

Whats funny the UN resolutions dotn actualy make a nation do anything. It sup to the nations to agree to abide by them but they ar e not legally required to do so if they dissagree.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: voyger2

Hmmm...i thought the USA and Cuba were getting all friendly of late?

If Cuba is now a friend, why doesn't the USA just decide to lift the blockade instead of having the UN vote to force it to?

Why don't they arrest the Castros for all the crimes they've committed? Just the fact that they tried to start WW3 should be enough by itself.

Whats funny the UN resolutions dotn actualy make a nation do anything. It sup to the nations to agree to abide by them but they ar e not legally required to do so if they dissagree.

Was just commenting on the idea that the US would make any concessions whatsoever to Cuba as long as it's still a dictatorship with a Castro running it. It's outrageous to even suggest it after everything this man has done to those people.