Republican News · Thursday 9 January 1996

[An Phoblacht]

 

US blinks over Cuba blockade

By Dara MacNeil

It must have been the prospect of a visit from John Bruton that finally shattered the resolve of the previously steadfast Bill Clinton.

In what was virtually the last act of the Irish EU Presidency, Bruton journeyed to Washington in late December in order to let Clinton know of the European Union's strenuous opposition to the Helms-Burton Act, legislation which the US hopes will finally topple Cuba's Fidel Castro.

Helms-Burton effectively escalates the United States' 35-year old blockade of Cuba. Previously, Clinton had ignored the collective pressure of the EU, Canada and Mexico and even the World Trade Organisation. All had angrily denounced a provision of the Act which allows Cuban exiles to sue in US courts for property lost to the Cuban Revolution. According to the Act, all such property is ``stolen.''

But what enraged the European Union, Mexico and Canada was that companies which did business in Cuba could be held liable for that loss. So for example, the US subsidiaries of French drinks company Pernod Ricard could be held liable for the losses suffered by the Bacardi Rum Company, as Pernod Ricard operates factories abandoned by Bacardi after 1959.

Not surprisingly, companies like Bacardi who lost heavily after 1959 - because they abandoned Cuba - have long sought a means to make good that loss. So it is no surprise to learn that a Bacardi lawyer sat in on the drafting of the Helms-Burton legislation. Indeed, in some quarters Helms-Burton has become known as the Bacardi Act.

However, it was not the immorality, nor the very illegality of the blockade which has conjured up this unlikely opposition coalition, but the prospect that the legislation could severely damage the substantial investments of European, Canadian and Mexican companies in Cuba.

The provision was due to become law in February and rich Cuban exiles were reputedly queuing up to lodge their damages claims in the courts. Clinton had publicly vowed that he would neither veto nor repeal the Act. Not even the prospect of retaliatory sanctions being taken by the European Union could dissuade him. And then John Bruton arrived.

Within days, a chastened Bill Clinton announced to the world that the most controversial provisions of Helms-Burton are to be suspended for a further six months. God only knows what John Bruton said.

Clinton has effectively hoisted himself on his own petard with Helms-Burton. Anxious to secure the Cuban exile vote in Florida he supported the passage of the legislation last year. In November's presidential race his gamble paid off when he won the state of Florida, the first Democrat to do so in twenty years.

Nonetheless, in doing so he has left himself hostage to the lunatic fringe in US politics and particularly the Neanderthal elements within Cuba's exile community.

While the US remains locked into a Cold War policy on Cuba, the rest of the world has moved on. Thus, in recent years a number of European, Canadian and Mexican companies have made substantial investments in the country. This fact alone explains why it has taken the world some thirty-five years to realise the essential immorality of the US blockade. While they had no interests in Cuba, the US was allowed to carry on as it pleased. This is an argument over money, nothing else.

Interestingly, this is also the first time in the last thirty-five years that the US has ever had to publicly explain its position on Cuba, let alone face the prospect of being harmed by the blockade. Had Clinton not backed down, he risked sparking an all-out trade war with the European Union. He has backed down this time, albeit temporarily.

But in two years time, as vice-president Al Gore begins his bid for the presidency, Clinton will be a political irrelevancy. And Gore will be anxious to maintain the Democratic hold on Florida. And to do that, he will have to bow to the wishes of the state's Cuban exiles. Where will Europe be then?

Peru rejects dialogue

Now almost a month old, the siege at the Japanese Embassy in Peru shows no signs of ending. While the presence of Japanese diplomats (Japan has substantial investments in the country) and the Peruvian President's younger brother among the hostages has, so far, forestalled any attempt at a military solution, effective negotiations have still not begun.

The Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori (the son of Japanese immigrants to Peru), whose style of rule is more dictatorial than democratic, has referred to the siege as a ``minor problem.'' For him dialogue equates with defeat. He should listen more closely to what is being said. ``Mr Fujimori,'' a recent communiqué from Tupac Amaru declared, ``with arrogant declarations and without dialogue there will never be a solution.''

Could almost apply that closer to home.

Contents Page for this Issue
Reply to: Republican News