Which condition for lifting sanctions against Cuba’s apartheid regime does Obama disagree with?

Apparently, President Obama feels that freedom, respect for human rights, and the end of apartheid in Cuba is way too much to ask of the racist and repressive Castro dictatorship. The president wants all sanctions against the apartheid Castro regime lifted without any concessions or conditions. It seems that America’s first black president has no qualms supporting and embracing Cuba’s violently repressive and racist apartheid regime.

Via Capitol Hill Cubans:

Which Conditions for Lifting the Cuban Embargo Does Obama Disagree With?


Yesterday, during his remarks at the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama stated:

I’m confident that our Congress will inevitably lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore.

Obama is partly right.

The U.S. Congress will eventually lift the embargo — but only upon the fulfillment of some very basic conditions in U.S. law.

These conditions are consistent with the democratic and human rights standards of 34 out of 35 nations in the Western Hemisphere.

(Though, ironically, Venezuela continues on a downwards spiral away from these standards — thanks in no small part to Cuba’s manipulation of the Chavez/Maduro governments.)

Thus, the questions should be —

Why does Obama want the U.S. Congress to unilaterally discard any of these conditions?

Does Obama not agree with these conditions?

Which one of these conditions does Obama oppose?

Is it, for example —

The condition that Cuba “legalizes all political activity“?

The condition that Cuba “releases all political prisoners and allows for investigations of Cuban prisons by appropriate international human rights organizations“?

The condition that Cuba “dissolves the present Department of State Security in the Cuban Ministry of the Interior, including the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution and the Rapid Response Brigades“?

The condition that Cuba “makes a public commitments to organizing free and fair elections for a new government”?

The condition that Cuba “makes public commitments to and is making demonstrable progress in establishing an independent judiciary; respecting internationally recognized human rights and basic freedoms as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Cuba is a signatory nation; allows the establishment of independent trade unions as set forth in conventions 87 and 98
of the International Labor Organization, and allows the establishment of independent social,
economic, and political associations”?

The condition that Cuba give “adequate assurances that it will allow the speedy and efficient distribution of assistance to the Cuban people“?

The condition that Cuba is “effectively guaranteeing the rights of free speech and freedom of the press, including granting permits to privately owned media and telecommunications companies to operate in Cuba“?

The condition that Cuba is “assuring the right to private property“?

The condition that Cuba is “taking appropriate steps to return to United States citizens (and entities which are 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens) property taken by the Cuban Government from such citizens and entities on or after January 1, 1959, or to provide equitable compensation to such citizens and entities for such property“?

The condition that Cuba has “extradited or otherwise rendered to the United States all persons sought by the United States Department of Justice for crimes committed in the United States“?

Let’s not speak of the embargo in vague terms.

If Obama is suggesting for Congress to unilaterally discard these conditions, then he should specifically state which ones he disagrees with — and why.

Moreover, Obama should explain how turning a blind-eye to these basic conditions in U.S. law would not send a horrible message to the Cuban people about the United States’ priorities, nor have dramatic short- and long-term consequences for the behavior of other pseudo-authoritarians in the region.



3 thoughts on “Which condition for lifting sanctions against Cuba’s apartheid regime does Obama disagree with?

  1. Everybody who’s on the ball in DC knows Raul Castro ordered the murders of unarmed American citizens over international waters; they know he’s had at least as much to do with drug trafficking as Manuel Noriega ever did; they know he violates basic human rights routinely and systematically and has absolutely no intention of changing his ways; they know he’s in cahoots with Putin, North Korea, Iran, the Red Chinese and any and all anti-American elements in this hemisphere and beyond–in short, they know what we know, and it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.

    The titular Vicar of Christ, by the way, should also know all those things, or he could easily find out if he bothered to ask “those people,” the greatest experts on the matter, but that’s not the way to get adoring MSM coverage or be “in” with the “progressive” crowd, let alone curry favor with the Latrine world.

    Thus, we’re as alone as ever, only now there’s virtually no pretense to the contrary, but rather the opposite: we are essentially being mocked and spit upon. To paraphrase the elder Manuel Marquez Sterling, “contra la perfidia ajena, la entereza propia” (against alien perfidy, personal integrity), but obviously, that requires sufficient integrity, dignity and self-respect.

  2. The problem, of course, is not the toxic politicians, appalling as they are, but the society that puts and keeps them in office, which effectively gives them a mandate to act like Clinton, Obama and the rest of their ilk. The responsible voters, unfortunately, cannot be voted out or held accountable in any way, so there’s no way to remove the root cause. The whole system has been debased and corrupted, as democracy is only as good as the majority of the voters.

  3. In this photo, Raul looks EXACTLY like a pig. As for Obama’s smug smirk, it’s the perfect symbol of how he views and does his job, and not just with respect to Cuba. How anybody could fail to see through the man is extremely hard to fathom, but maybe that’s not the real issue, which is probably that too many people don’t care, just as they evidently don’t care about a flagrant slimeball like Clinton.

Comments are closed.