Yesterday, the Castro regime presented its annual resolution at the United Nations' General Assembly ("UNGA") condemning the United States’ bilateral sanctions toward Cuba.
It prevailed 191-2, with Israel standing by the U.S.’s side.
In the run-up to yesterday's vote, the media kept focusing on two issues:
1. Whether there would be any sort of “good-will” gesture by the Castro regime in light of the Obama Administration's unilateral efforts to ease sanctions and normalize relations.
Predictably, there was not.
2. Whether the Obama Administration would abstain from defending the law of the United States.
To its credit, it ultimately did.
But there is another fundamental issue no one has raised:
3. Why didn't any of the U.S.’s democratic allies at least recognize -- by abstaining -- the Obama Administration's unilateral efforts to establish diplomatic relations, ease sanctions and normalize relations with Cuba's regime?
After all, the Obama Administration's most passionate argument for its new policy was that it would encourage our allies to join U.S. efforts to promote human rights and democracy in Cuba.
Yet, since December 17th, 2014, despite the shower of foreign dignitaries, celebrities, Members of the U.S. Congress and even a Pope, who have descended upon Havana -- not a single one of them has courageously called for the freedom of the Cuban people.
Similarly, all of the other metrics of the Obama Administration's new Cuba policy also continue moving in the wrong direction (click here to read Senator Menendez’s recent floor speech on these metrics).
The issue of which nations the U.S. chooses to conduct commerce with is one of a bilateral nature, which lies on the will of our democratically-elected Congress. It is not the prerogative of the United Nations.
Moreover, Cuba's regime does not have a "right" to receive business, financing and investment from the United States. That is a "privilege" that should be earned.
The conditions for Cuba receiving such business, financing and investment are codified in U.S. law. If anyone disagrees with any of those simple conditions in U.S. law, then click here -- and please identify which one.
If other nations choose to do business with Cuba's dictatorship, that's (for worse) their prerogative. As a matter of fact, practically every other nation in the world does business with Cuba's dictatorship and we've seen first-hand how those billions are all funneled through Castro's monopolies, while serving no benefit to the Cuban people.
If U.S. policy towards Cuba has purportedly "failed" -- as its critics contend -- then the policies of the 191 nations that have embraced Castro's regime have (at least) equally failed.
The Obama Administration seeks for the United States to "lead from behind" regarding Cuba policy. It believes that if Americans act like the Mexicans, French and Canadians in coddling Castro, that somehow the Mexicans, French and Canadians will begin acting more like Americans and press Castro.
That is a fundamental folly, which will be proven wrong time-and-again.
The United States should never lower its standards and principles with the hope that other nations might raise theirs.
It prevailed 191-2, with Israel standing by the U.S.’s side.
In the run-up to yesterday's vote, the media kept focusing on two issues:
1. Whether there would be any sort of “good-will” gesture by the Castro regime in light of the Obama Administration's unilateral efforts to ease sanctions and normalize relations.
Predictably, there was not.
2. Whether the Obama Administration would abstain from defending the law of the United States.
To its credit, it ultimately did.
But there is another fundamental issue no one has raised:
3. Why didn't any of the U.S.’s democratic allies at least recognize -- by abstaining -- the Obama Administration's unilateral efforts to establish diplomatic relations, ease sanctions and normalize relations with Cuba's regime?
After all, the Obama Administration's most passionate argument for its new policy was that it would encourage our allies to join U.S. efforts to promote human rights and democracy in Cuba.
Yet, since December 17th, 2014, despite the shower of foreign dignitaries, celebrities, Members of the U.S. Congress and even a Pope, who have descended upon Havana -- not a single one of them has courageously called for the freedom of the Cuban people.
Similarly, all of the other metrics of the Obama Administration's new Cuba policy also continue moving in the wrong direction (click here to read Senator Menendez’s recent floor speech on these metrics).
The issue of which nations the U.S. chooses to conduct commerce with is one of a bilateral nature, which lies on the will of our democratically-elected Congress. It is not the prerogative of the United Nations.
Moreover, Cuba's regime does not have a "right" to receive business, financing and investment from the United States. That is a "privilege" that should be earned.
The conditions for Cuba receiving such business, financing and investment are codified in U.S. law. If anyone disagrees with any of those simple conditions in U.S. law, then click here -- and please identify which one.
If other nations choose to do business with Cuba's dictatorship, that's (for worse) their prerogative. As a matter of fact, practically every other nation in the world does business with Cuba's dictatorship and we've seen first-hand how those billions are all funneled through Castro's monopolies, while serving no benefit to the Cuban people.
If U.S. policy towards Cuba has purportedly "failed" -- as its critics contend -- then the policies of the 191 nations that have embraced Castro's regime have (at least) equally failed.
The Obama Administration seeks for the United States to "lead from behind" regarding Cuba policy. It believes that if Americans act like the Mexicans, French and Canadians in coddling Castro, that somehow the Mexicans, French and Canadians will begin acting more like Americans and press Castro.
That is a fundamental folly, which will be proven wrong time-and-again.
The United States should never lower its standards and principles with the hope that other nations might raise theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment