The United Nations needs to quit, and reconstitute itself without its structural flaws – namely the US, Russian, and Chinese veto. That’s an embarrassment and the veto reveals that the nature of the body to be a puppet, always trumpeting the interests of the rulers of the world.
This is from: [counterpunch]
The United Nations General Assembly on June 23 overwhelmingly approved a Cuban resolution condemning the U.S. economic, commercial, and financial blockade of Cuba, in place for 60 years, The Assembly has done precisely that every year since 1992, except for 2020, when the vote was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The vote this time was: 184 nations approving; two opposing, Israel and the United States; and three abstaining, Colombia, Ukraine, and Brazil.
All along, the United States and Israel have opposed the resolution, alone on ten occasions, especially since 2010. One or two other nations occasionally joined them, often the U.S. dependencies Palau and the Marshall Islands.
“so close it ought to be ours”
How soul-crushing it must be, to have basically the entire world agreeing with you, then the US and Israel say, “nah, because we can.” The vote reveals the US’ dishonesty (relying on a ‘voting body’ that is has trapdoored, a familiar trick) and cruelty. The US has no rights over Cuba, and that is the point: the US’ actions are profound multi-generational resentment over Cuba’s refusal to surrender and become a ‘protectorate’ like Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. There’s no basis in rights for the US’ resentment, except that Cuba’s awfully close, therefore it ought to belong to us. That’s straight-up imperialist reasoning, and the way the US continues to stand alone in the world, against the rest of global opinion, is obvious.
The fact that we have no US president and few politicians who speak out against this, says a lot about the kind of people that control this country, and nothing whatsoever about the Cubans. I think the whole sham “we’re doing this because Cuba is socialist” is wearing pretty thin, too. Recent events have convinced me that most American politicians don’t know what socialism is and probably can’t spell it, either.
Israel. Pfff, what a lap-dog.
I feel like being slightly more charitable, or at least pragmatic: The veto exists because, whether the UN recognizes it or not, the US can do whatever it wants. There’s no realistic way to force America to do or not do anything at all (and the same argument applies to Russia and China).
Since that’s the case, they might as well have an official veto, so at least we’re all clear about what’s what and we don’t waste our time on something that’ll never happen anyway. Since the UN has no real power, there’s no point pretending it does.
I think your reading too much US imperialism into this, it also had a healthy dose of stupid politics and anti-communism hysteria.
Anti-communism hysteria was a major element of the original blockade. Fear that communists might have a staging ground for invasion right on the US doorstep was taken up by both parties. The Republicans still have an element of this in using Cuba as an example of how socialism fails, ignoring it’s the multi-decade embargo that has crushed the island’s economy.
Eventually it became more a matter of stupid politics. Neither parties wanted to anger the anti-Castro refugees so they kept the embargo up. At this point even that isn’t that important any more and it’s largely that neither party cares enough to break the status quo. There is always something more important to deal with then making what would be a somewhat embarrassing reversal of US policy. Changing policy has political downsides but no upsides so it stays.
LykeX@#1:
Since the UN has no real power, there’s no point pretending it does.
Since the UN has no real power, there’s no point giving the US, Russia and China a veto – let them register their displeasure with one vote against.
Of course it’s all wasting time over things that will never happen anyway, but crystallizing public opinion leads to (sometimes) resistance. I think that the US is pretty much irresistable – able to win any battle while still losing every war.
JM@#2:
There is always something more important to deal with then making what would be a somewhat embarrassing reversal of US policy.
That’s true. Witness the US announcing then failing to actually exit Afghanistan, after losing a war there spectacularly – they insist on continuing to war there with reduced forces, as if reduced forces will work where a larger table-stakes did not. It’s weird. Nationalists sure are stupid gomers, aren’t they?
Don’t you spell it socalizm over there?
As Australia is busy demonstrating you can just ignore the UN if you don’t like it. Assuming no major powers decide they care.
Why does our esteemed host wish to protect the British and French vetoes in the UN Security Council?
Why not rotate the veto at semi-random as with the membership of the “non-permanent” UNSC seats?