Ageing Cuban plane linked to embargo by successive US administrations

[Judi Lynn]

8. That's a great reference. I scanned some, will read it all. The embargo is illegal internationally.

Years ago the international community objected strenuously to the expanding power the US was claiming over matters which were absolutely beyond the legal authority and reach of this government. Their reaction was emphatic, unmistakable.

People paying attention to foreign affairs learned about it either when it happened, or through research following these extreme measures created by the US Congress.

People who insist upon foolish, right-wing propaganda, remain blissfully ignorant, or they are purposely resistant to admitting reality, hoping people who don't know the truth won't find out later, and come to realize how treacherous, how duplicitous the perception molding of the public has been throughout this sorry history of aggression against of Cuban people after the revolution.

They have absolutely no idea of the impact of this poisonous, sneaky war against Cuban people, and don't care enough to simply look for the truth, have clearly ignored everything they have heard which should have triggered an alarm with them over the years.

"Don't know, don't care." Not a very good excuse, is it?

Here's another reference:

EMBARGO OR BLOCKADE?
THE LEGAL AND MORAL DIMENSIONS OF THE
U.S. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ON CUBA

. . .

From an internationalist's perspective, two sticky points of the
U.S. policy stand out. One is its express extraterritorial reach aimed
at regulating the conduct of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies
which, under international legal principles, are nationals of the state
of incorporation and not U.S. nationals. The other is the tension of
the sanctions with the idea of free trade central to the World Trade
Organization (WTO), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), and also embraced by the North American Free Trade
Agreement governing U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade. Opponents claim
that the extraterritorial reach of and the barriers to trade created by
the embargo violate international law. Moreover, it has a disastrous
impact on the people of Cuba including establishing a roadblock to
feeding the hungry or treating the sick.6 On the other hand,
proponents of the policy argue that it is a perfectly legitimate
exercise of sovereignty by the world's only surviving superpower
with the valid and laudable objective of strangulating an already
failed economy and bringing democracy (and thus freedom) to the
people of Cuba.7

Two other observations are noteworthy about the embargo. One
is that the Cuban community in the U.S., a politically powerful and
usually united force, is deeply divided on the embargo issue,
especially with respect to the most recent regulations enlarging the
limitations on remittances and family travel to Cuba. Second is that
while the Cuban community generally has been embraced in the U.S.
as a model minority - although that has more to do with the Cold
War politics that praise capitalism and denounce communism than
with any impetus of non-discrimination - many in the Midwest who
want to trade their agricultural products have joined the international
community's (including many states with a long history of alignment
with the U.S.) condemnation of the U.S. action as an invalid exercise
of extraterritorial jurisdiction and thus an impermissible infringement
of states' sovereignty.

. . .

In 1992, thirty years after the initial embargo, the Cuban
Democracy Act53 ("CDA" or "Torricelli Law" ) marked a
Congressional tightening of U.S. economic policy toward Cuba. The
most controversial of the CDA's provisions is the restoration of an
aspect of the 1962 embargo that had been repealed in 1975
prohibiting foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations from doing
business with Cuba. The extraterritorial reach of the CDA's
provisions, including the prohibition concerning the acts of foreign
subsidiaries of U.S. Corporations, is at the heart of the virtually
universal challenge to their legality under accepted international
norms.

The international community has opposed the embargo in
general, and this provision in particular, on the basis of
impermissible interference with state sovereignty. Annually, since
1992 when the CDA was only pending in Congress, the European
Community (as the European Union (EU) was then known) has
objected in the U.N. General Assembly to the prohibition of foreignowned
subsidiaries, incorporated and domiciled outside the United
States, from trading with Cuba.55 The basis of the objection is that,
under international law, the nationality of a corporate entity is the
state of its incorporation. By including wholly owned subsidiaries of
U.S. corporations in the jurisdictional reach of the CDA, the United
States is seeking to exercise jurisdiction over corporate entities that,
pursuant to international law, are foreign, that is, non-U.S.
corporations.

. . .

However, the impacts of economic sanctions are greater than
lack of access to goods. In the case of Cuba, some argue that the
U.S. embargo has had a deleterious impact on nutrition and health
with a lack of availability of medicine and equipment, as well as
decreased water quality. 12 1 Indeed, the American Association for
World Health (AAWH), in a 1997 report, concluded that

the U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the
health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban
citizens.... It is our expert medical opinion that the U.S.
embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and
even deaths-in Cuba .... A humanitarian catastrophe has
been averted only because the Cuban government has
maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health
care system designed to deliver primary and preventive
health care to all of its citizens. 1

22
Thus, AAWH concludes that the embargo, limiting availability
of food, medicine, and medical supplies, has a deleterious effect on
Cuban society. Significantly, religious leaders, including the late
Pope John Paul II, opposed the embargo and called for its end. 23
The gravamen of the objection is the humanitarian and economic
hardships that the embargo causes.

More:
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://results.searchlock.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1219&context=facultypub