On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Blockading Cuba has never made sense. If communism is an inferior failed system that can’t compete with the freedom of Capitalism (cue heavenly sunbeams and angel choirs) why not leave Cuba alone and let nature take its course?

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Noted socialist (/s) Hillary Clinton advocated for that very thing.

      The real reason behind the embargo at this point is that it makes a small but important voting bloc of Cuban expats in Florida happy.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

    And just like every year, the vote will do nothing.

    • Varyk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      it’ll add up to a hell of a lot of justified reparations when the US backs down.

      • Kroxx@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 minutes ago

        US backs down

        Does the US back down? We definitely double down

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Why is it normalized that one country can block/embargo/complicate/whatever-you-want-to-call-it another country to the point of severely affecting the lives of millions of people … for what? because one country disagrees with the politics of another country?

    If countries were able to do that, there would be no trade anywhere in the world.

    Yet it’s been completely normalized for the past six decades between the US and Cuba.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Because the international order is based on economic and military might, not any sort of higher ideal or codified rules.

        • atzanteol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Well… Yeah. Who do you think would enforce any “rules”? And how would they?

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            If only UN wasn’t completely useless to the point of not doing anything

            • where_am_i
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              So, UN would?

              But then all the major powers woukd exit cuz this doesn’t suit them, and the UN would be useless again.

              • Maalus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                if only the UN wasn’t so useless

                It’s actually a scam that it is pointless. All it does is it creates an illusion of discourse when there is none - the “big boys” will still do whatever suits them best - be it China, Russia, US.

      • mx_smith@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Some of those have been decommissioned. I know for sure the first one in the second column has, as I was stationed in that one.

      • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The US also has about 750 military bases (not including black sites) scattered across 80 countries around the world

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 hours ago

        There is more countries with CVs than i thought. Also Brazil and Thailand? I wasn’t aware they had any sizeable navy to begin with.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Countries have complicated trade for centuries. Free trade is a modern exception, not the historical rule.

      And in principle, countries have as much right to restrict trade with Cuba as they do with Russia and Israel. It’s the same principle that allows people to call for boycotts of Amazon and Starbucks. All of these things can affect the lives of millions, in an effort to bring about political change.

    • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It isn’t that it’s normalized. It is simply that no one can do anything about it. So, they voice their disagreement.

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Palestine and plenty of other countries, too. Mostly the ones that want a different economic system, afaict.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      The US military is in 75% of the countries on earth but it’s definitely not the largest empire the world has ever seen * wink wink *

    • Geobloke@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Just wait until China blockades Taiwan and uses the USAs blockade of Cuba as precedent

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The problem being that Taiwan is a critical part of the entire global economy. TSMC fabricates ~50% of all semiconductor products in the world, but critically >90% of all fabrication at 5nm or lower (basically everything with a fabrication process less than a decade old). They are the leading edge. If you want to make a modern CPU, TSMC is your foundry.

        By threatening Taiwan, China is holding a gun to the head of the entire world. Loss of TSMC’s fabrication would basically shut down the global computer industry.

  • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Legalize the import of Cuban cigars, and I will personally bring Cuba back into an age of prosperity.

    • Today@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      You can bring them back in your luggage - limit is maybe 100 cigars or $1000 worth. Something like that.

      • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        I’m 99% certain Trump administration put the kibosh on that. At least that was what I was told when I traveled out of country in 2023, and wanted to see if I could bring some back.

        In 2016, the Obama administration eased some restrictions, allowing U.S. travelers to bring Cuban cigars into the country for personal use. However, this was short-lived. In 2020, the Trump administration re-imposed strict regulations, re-banning Cuban cigars—whether bought in Cuba or through third countries. Current Regulations:

        As of now, it is illegal to import Cuban cigars into the U.S. This includes bringing cigars bought in other countries that originated from Cuba. Any attempt to bring Cuban cigars into the U.S. can result in serious legal consequences, including confiscation and potential fines.

      • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        The thing I love about Cubans is the smell. The US is spoiled with a wonderful selection of great Nicaraguan and Dominican cigars that for all intents and purposes beat out Cubans. But Cuban cigars have a very particular smell that I can’t get over.

        • Maeve@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          I’ve enjoyed really nice Dominican cigars, especially the chocolate and I forget what you can the greens but they are fabulous.

  • Today@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 hours ago

    We were in Cuba one year when they had the vote. I had never heard of it, but it was all over the news there so i thought it actually meant something.

  • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The United Nations is a corrupt organization the majority of whose members try to improve their station by taking bribes to vote whichever way Russia, China, the Arabs or Iran pay them to. It’s been a fucking joke for decades.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The purpose of the UN was to prevent World War III. That’s all.

      It was never intended to be a global government, it was never intended to prevent all conflict, it was never intended to be a perfect organization.

      Expecting the UN to exist without corruption, or to effectively prevent all wrongs across the world, is to severely misunderstand what the intended goal is or what any collective group of humans is even capable of.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Yes, well, at the end of WWII all of the major economic powers in the world were more interested in negotiating than fighting. Nobody wanted to go to war again, at least not for awhile.

          Eight decades later, and all those lessons have been forgotten. Self-interested and shortsighted leaders have risen to the tops of many nations, and nationalistic rhetoric is gaining popularity again.

          The problem isn’t really with the the UN as an organization, but with the participants who are no longer acting in good faith, and no longer see large-scale war as something to be avoided at any cost.

          I wasn’t trying to say that the UN had the power to prevent WWIII, only that it was created with the intent to do so. The UN as an organization never really had any teeth of its own. It’s a forum for discussion between nations - not going to war can really only happen if the nations involved make that the priority above their own interests.

          With North Korea now committing troops to the conflict in Ukraine, the current situation seems very familiar, a prelude that will eventually lead to larger economic powers being drawn into the conflict directly. It feels like we’re all on a well-trod historical path, and I don’t know how we get through it without learning those lessons the hard way, again.

          I fucking hope I’m wrong.