"double the sanctions"

[El Presidente]

The U.S. Congress reopened the debate on the embargo against  Cuba on Wednesday, a policy that has divided Democrats and Republicans for decades. On one side, there are those who argue that the measure damages Washington's image, while on the other side, advocates call for tightening the sanctions.

 

During the hearing of the Subcommittee on Global Health, Human Rights, and International Organizations, Republican Congressman Christopher Smith described the  Cuban government as one of the "most repressive and brutal regimes in the world" and emphasized its ties to China as a threat to U.S. national security, according to the AFP agency.

Smith proposed to "double the sanctions" as a measure to pressure the regime.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a former Cuban-American congresswoman, supported this stance, stating that maintaining the embargo is "the right thing to do" and accused the Cuban government of diverting resources intended for the population to other purposes.

 

For María C. Werlau, director of Archivo Cuba, totalitarian regimes do not engage in dialogue; therefore, sanctions should be intensified and international support sought to further isolate Cuba, following a model similar to that which contributed to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

In contrast, Democrat Susan Wild questioned the effectiveness of the embargo, stating that the policy of isolation has failed to improve the conditions for the Cuban people. According to Wild, the current approach "only serves to distance Cuba further from the promise of a free society."

Juan Pappier, a representative of Human Rights Watch, described the embargo as counterproductive, arguing that it has provided the Cuban government with an excuse to justify its economic failures and abuses, as well as to garner international sympathy.

Pappier proposed to gradually replace the embargo with specific sanctions against those responsible for human rights violations, while promoting a multilateral approach.

The debate occurs weeks before the elected president Donald Trump takes office with a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress. His selection of Marco Rubio as the head of diplomacy suggests a tightening of sanctions against Cuba.

However, the outgoing administration of Joe Biden has made it clear that it does not plan to change its policy toward Cuba before the end of its term on January 20. According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, there will be no changes to Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism or the associated sanctions.

The embargo, in effect since 1962, has been one of the most controversial points of U.S. foreign policy. In 2015, during Barack Obama's administration, a historic rapprochement was achieved that included Cuba's removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

 

 

 

[BrightonCorgi]

Kick 'em while they're down.

[Puros Y Vino]

2 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Kick 'em while they're down.

Yep. Bullies like easy targets.  

[MickVanWinkle]

I’m by no means an expert in policy, but it would seem to me that imposing hardships has created further opportunity for other entities (China). Doubling down would likely only amplify the appeal/need on further reliance on ties to China.

I believe the (greatest ever) Christmas movie, Trading Places, is an eloquent case study highlighting the effects of desperation on behavior.  

[BrightonCorgi]

9 hours ago, MickVanWinkle said:

I’m by no means an expert in policy, but it would seem to me that imposing hardships has created further opportunity for other entities (China). Doubling down would likely only amplify the appeal/need on further reliance on ties to China.

I believe the (greatest ever) Christmas movie, Trading Places, is an eloquent case study highlighting the effects of desperation on behavior.  

China's land invasion of the America will start from Cuba. 

[Ken Gargett]

9 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

China's land invasion of the America will start from Cuba. 

i thought you were going to say California. 

[BigGuns]

6 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i thought you were going to say California. 

Catching strays over here!!!  
 

 

but you’re not wrong

[Guyman1966]

I've been away for a while...but I kind of remember a forum rule banning US political conversations. Oh...and its been fun catching up. 

[El Presidente]

5 hours ago, Guyman1966 said:

I've been away for a while...but I kind of remember a forum rule banning US political conversations. Oh...and its been fun catching up.

With one exception that has always been there from the start. US/Cuba policy has always been permitted 

[Guyman1966]

Cool.

[JohnnyO]

On 12/13/2024 at 2:31 PM, MickVanWinkle said:

I’m by no means an expert in policy, but it would seem to me that imposing hardships has created further opportunity for other entities (China). Doubling down would likely only amplify the appeal/need on further reliance on ties to China.

I believe the (greatest ever) Christmas movie, Trading Places, is an eloquent case study highlighting the effects of desperation on behavior.  

Problem with your China idea is Cuba has a "I no pay" policy with the rest of the world. They ask you to finance, stall, stall some more and then they don't pay. Or they ask you to refinance a 20 year debt. The monkey wrench in the machinery will be Rubio as he has closer ties to Miami/Cuban voters. John 

[JV0505]

On 12/13/2024 at 7:28 AM, BrightonCorgi said:

China's land invasion of the America will start from Cuba. 

At this point Cuba’s land invasion of America is going to start in Cuba 😆