USA-Cuba: Washington Increases Rhetoric and Aggressive Actions

Washington, May 4 (Prensa Latina) The United States increased its actions and aggressive rhetoric towards Cuba during the same week in which it activated a legislative title against the island and accused it again, without evidence, of maintaining troops in Venezuela.

On May 2, the Donald Trump administration activated Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, which allows US nationals to file lawsuits against those who ‘traffic’ with ‘American properties’ in Cuba.

Through this mechanism there is the possibility of promoting legal actions in US courts against persons and entities, including third countries, that invest in Cuban territory on nationalized properties after the triumph of the Revolution on January 1, 1959.

Since 1996, when Helms-Burton was approved, all administrations had suspended Title III due to the damages it would entail for the United States itself, whose judicial system could have to deal with a large number of lawsuits, and the claims of allies of this nation with investments in the Antillean country.

But the Trump government decided to allow its application as part of a series of increasingly hostile measures and under pressure from figures such as National Security Advisor, John Bolton, and Senator Marco Rubio.

Thus, on the same day of the activation of the title, the first lawsuits were filed, two of them against the Carnival Cruise Lines cruise company, based in the southern US state of Florida, by claimants who claim ownership of the Port of Santiago and real estate in the Port of Havana.

Likewise, the oil giant ExxonMobil filed an action against two Cuban companies: Corporación Cimex SA and Union Cuba-Petróleo, with the argument that it has a certified claim for nationalized properties, ‘including oil refineries and service stations that are still In use’.

With the activation of Title III, rather than seeking the return of properties nationalized in Cuba or abandoned by those who left the island, the objective is that these demands become obstacles for any future arrangement or possible evolution towards an improvement in the relations, a senior Cuban official told Prensa Latina.

In an interview with this medium after the application of the section, Carlos Fernández de Cossío, general director of the United States in the Foreign Ministry of the Caribbean territory, said that his nation is committed to protecting the links with the international business that has been in the country for years. that may come in the future.

It must be remembered that Cuba passed legislation that makes the Helms-Burton inapplicable on the island, which is committed to protecting these companies, said in reference to the Law of Reaffirmation of Cuban Dignity and Sovereignty or Law 80, endorsed in 1996.

At this rate the US government joined in recent days the threats of Trump himself, who said he could impose a ‘total and complete embargo’ on Cuba, if Havana does not withdraw alleged military troops that Washington says are deployed in Venezuela.

Cuba is in solidarity with Venezuela, and what the United States intends is that we remove the medical personnel that provide very important services to the population, especially in the midst of the difficult conditions under which the country transits under US sanctions, said Cossío. .

Amid the aggressiveness of Washington, many foreign voices have opposed the activation of Title III.

David Pathe, executive director of the Canadian firm Sherritt International Corporation, and one of the main investors on the island, recently told Bloomberg that he does not believe there is any basis on which a US court can exercise jurisdiction over the company if someone will initiate a legal action against you.

On the occasion of the activation of Title III, the Canadian Government issued a statement in which it stated that it will always defend the Canadians and companies of that country that carry out legitimate business and investments in Cuba.

For its part, the EU bloc said that the extraterritorial application of unilateral restrictive measures contravenes international law, and therefore it will resort to all appropriate measures to address the consequences, including its rights in the World Trade Organization and the use of the Statute of Blockade of the EU.

To these positions are joined the claims of businessmen, solidarity organizations, religious leaders and members of the United States Congress, who oppose the measure, and the convictions of nations such as Russia, China, Belgium, Mexico, Panama, Ecuador and Nicaragua.


This entry was posted in The Blockade?. Bookmark the permalink.