International Responses
Table of Contents
To go to:
America's recent hard-line policy towards Cuba has not gone unnoticed in the international community. Soon after the Helms-Burton Act was signed into law, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union (among others) protested the actions of the United States. These nations, all of which conduct extensive trade with Cuba, "passed laws countering with sactions on behalf of their own companies if Washington sought to invoke its sanctions" (New York Times, 2/20/97). The Canadian response, for example, was the Godfrey-Milikin Act, which follows the American example in providing a legal basis for Canadian citizens to demand legal restitution from Americans for trafficking in confiscated Canadian property. More specifically, the law allows "descendants of United Empire Loyalists who fled the land that later became the United States . . . to establish a claim to the property they or their ancestors owned in the United States that was confiscated without compensation, and claim compensation for it in the Canadian courts, and to exclude from Canada any foreign person trafficking in such property."
The U.N. resolution passed in response to the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, for instance, denounced any governmental economic or trade policy which is meant to punish another country and, in turn, disrupts the free flow of international trade. Passed with a vote of 138 to 3 with 24 abstentions, the resolution shows recevied strong support. Only the United States, Israel, and Uzbekistan voted against the resolution, and, for the first time in history, the European Union acted in concert against the United States. The resolution called for all nations to abstain from taking economic sanctions against another country which would negatively influence the free flow of international trade. The resolution decries "economic and trade measures by one state against another which affect the free flow of international traffic," and specifically attacks the Helms-Burton Act as "affect[ing] the sovereignty of other states, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation."
The Threat to the WTO
The World Trade Organization, which was created two years ago by an international attempt to regulate global trade, is currently overseeing legal procedures against the actions of the American government. After six months of negotiations, Europe brought its charges of U.S. interference with international trade before a WTO judicial panel, claiming that "the United States has violated international law by imposing penalties on foreign companies" (New York Times, 2/20/97). The U.S., though, which sees the WTO as a young, unstable organization without the proper structure to regulate international law, has refused to cooperate with the legal procedures. Although the refusal of the United States to comply with the investigation has prompted further anger in the international arena, the U.S. may have a legally binding position--the "national security exception". This is a discrepancy in the WTO treaty texts of both GATT Article 21 and GATS Article 14 (applying to trade in goods and trade in services, respectivly) which exempts nations of the WTO from trade agreements in the case of national security. In other words, if the United States claims that its relations with Cuba are a matter of security, it would be exempt from any otherwise binding trade agreements of the WTO. Whether or not the U.S. chooses to fight Europe's charges, the case presents a potential threat to the WTO's credibility. Accoring to the American Society of International Law, the WTO treaty, when given a broad interpretation, could be shown as inconsistent with actual policies, resulting in the threatened security and stability of the world trading system for which the WTO had been created to protect.
OAS Speaks Out
During the1996 annual meeting of the Organization of American States, yet another resolution against the Helms-Burton Act was presented and approved. Like others, the resolution passed by the Organization of American States also criticizes Washington's move to tighten the embargo, claiming that the Helms-Burton Act presents a threat to international commerce and law. It criticizes all laws which "obstruct international trade and investment," as well as "the free movement of persons." Along with the investigation of the World Trade Organization, the OAS resolution also called for the Inter-American Judicial Committee to "examine the validity [of the Helms-Burton Act] under international law" and provide a ruling as soon as possible. The resolution had 32 co-sponsors, and was approved by every member nation but the United States--a statistic which is especially significant in the face of charges that the organization is "a group of subservient puppets manipulated by the United States" (New York Times, 6/5/96). Moreover, "coming from a forum that has always done its best to avoid controversy, the vote could only be interpreted as a stunning defeat for the United States and a rejection of the Clinton Administration's get-tough policy toward Cuba" (New York Times, 6/5/96).
Perhaps the most astounding response to the Helms-Burton Act, though, is the disapproval of American corporations. Fearing a loss of customers and retaliation by foreign governments, corporate America is beginning to protest the government's use of economic sanctions. The corporations are not only concerned about the effects of the tightened embargo on Cuba, but also the widespread American policy of using economic sanctions against "misbehaving" nations. Since 1941, the U.S. government has implemented over 70 unilateral sanctions--against Japan, Cuba, Iraq, South Africa, U.S.S.R., and various others. These policies limit the international market for American corporations, corporations which are then subject to retaliation and sanctions (such as Canada's Godfrey-Milikin Act) from affected nations. And, although American corporations are almost always willing to support a national government which goes out of its way to accomodate Big Business, The Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Export Council, and National Foreign Trade Council have all taken steps to express their dissatisfaction (New York Times, 9/11/96).
Last Page | Next Page | Homepage | Class Page
Copyright ©1997, Sarah Richardson and Dory Weiss