General Assembly Speeches by Cuba and Vietnam on Ukraine

 STATEMENT BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE 

OF CUBA TO THE UNITED NATIONS, AMBASSADOR 

PEDRO LUIS PEDROSO CUESTA, AT THE 

EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION 

REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF RIGHTS OF 

MEMBERSHIP OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE 

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL. 

New York, 7 April 2022.

Mr. President;

Cuba has always championed and worked for a 

Human Rights Council capable of coping with the 

complex challenges the international community 

faces in this area, from which no country escapes. 

We defend objectivity, impartiality and transparency 

in the work of that body, and that its procedures and 

mechanisms are implemented on the basis of 

accurate and verified information. 

The use of the clause on suspension of the right of 

membership in the Council will, in no way, favor the 

search for a peaceful, negotiated and lasting solution 

to the conflict in Ukraine; and much less will it help to 

foster the spirit of cooperation, dialogue and 

understanding that should prevail when addressing 

the issue of human rights.

It is disrespectful, moreover, that just a few days

before the conclusion of a regular session of the 

Human Rights Council; that body has not even been 

given the opportunity to speak out on this subject.

Mr. President,

Since the beginning of the negotiation process 

regarding the establishment of the new Council that 

would replace the Commission on Human Rights, 

Cuba opposed the membership suspension clause, 

due to the serious risk that it would be used by 

certain countries that favor double standards, 

selectivity and the politicization of human rights 

issues. 

This clause can be activated with the support of only 

two thirds of those present and voting; therefore, 

abstentions do not count and not even a required 

minimum number of votes is established for the 

suspension to be approved. 

To be elected as a member of the Human Rights 

Council, a country needs to obtain at the very least, 

in a secret ballot, the endorsement of the majority of 

the UN members, that is to say, no less that 97 

votes. 

Thus, the rights of a member of the Council can be 

suspended by the will of an even smaller number of 

States than those that decided to elect it and grant it 

those rights.

The Russian Federation, which was elected as a 

member of the Human Rights Council in 2020 by 158 

votes, could today be suspended by a lower number.

That suspension mechanism, which has no parallel 

in any other United Nations organ, can be easily 

used in a selective manner. Today it is Russia, but 

tomorrow it could be any of our countries, particularly 

nations of the South that do not bow to the interests 

of domination and staunchly defend their 

independence.

It was no coincidence that the most enthusiastic 

supporters of the membership suspension clause, 

when the establishment of the new Human Rights 

Council was being negotiated, were developed 

nations with a proven tendency to accuse countries 

of the South that do not abide by their alleged

models of democracy, while remaining silently 

complicit in the face of flagrant violations of human 

rights in Western countries. 

Of course, not everyone present in this hall shares 

our concerns about the suspension mechanism, 

since they know that the victims of its selective use 

will always be others. 

Will this Assembly be able, some day, to pass a 

resolution suspending the membership of the United 

States in the Human Rights Council, just to mention

an example? 

We are all aware that this has not happened and will 

not happen, despite its blatant and massive 

violations of human rights, as a result of invasions 

and wars of plunder against sovereign States, in 

accordance with its geopolitical interests. They have 

caused the death of hundreds of thousands of 

civilians, whom they call "collateral damage"; millions 

of displaced persons and mammoth destruction 

throughout our planet´s geography, but this 

Assembly has never suspended any of their rights.

We all also know that the suspension clause will not 

be applied against the State that has imposed 

against Cuba, for more than 60 years, a criminal 

economic, commercial and financial blockade which

constitutes, without a doubt, the most protracted, 

flagrant, massive and systematic violation of the 

human rights of an entire people and a true act of 

genocide against an entire country.

It is ironic, to say the least, to see that the country 

that opposed the establishment of the Human Rights 

Council and demanded, in this very hall, the vote 

against the resolution that gave birth to it, is the 

same country that has activated at its own benefit

now, as it did in 2011, one of the most controversial 

clauses of that forum.

Mr. President,

Cuba will be consistent with the reservations it made 

relating to the membership suspension mechanism, 

upon the adoption in 2006 of resolution 60/251 that 

established the Human Rights Council and resolution 

65/265, of 2011, on the suspension of Libya's rights.

The adoption of the draft resolution we are 

considering today, will set an additional dangerous 

precedent, particularly for the South. 

It is not enough for them to impose country-specific 

resolutions and selective mandates. Now they intend 

to take a new step towards the legitimation of 

selectivity and the creation of a Human Rights 

Council increasingly at the service of certain 

countries, as was once the extinct and discredited 

Commission on Human Rights.

For the reasons explained above, the Cuban 

delegation will vote against draft resolution L.XX.

Thank you very much

Address by ambassador Pedro Luis Pedroso Cuesta, Cuba’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in the United Nations General Assembly Emergency Special Session on Ukraine. New York, 1 March 2022

Mr. President, 

Last 26 February, the Cuban Government issued a Statement on the events in Ukraine, clearly adopting a stance in favor of a solution that guarantees the security and sovereignty of all and addresses legitimate humanitarian concerns.

Cuba champions International Law and is committed to the Charter of the United Nations. Cuba will always defend peace and unambiguously oppose the use or threat of use of force against any State. 

That is why we firmly support the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, signed in 2014 in Havana by the Heads of State and Government of our region. 

Cuba is also committed to International Humanitarian Law and calls on all parties to protect the civilian population, their possessions and infrastructure. 

We deeply regret the loss of innocent civilian lives in Ukraine.  The Cuban people have had and continue to have a very close relationship with the Ukrainian people.

Mister President,

It is impossible to make a rigorous and honest examination of the current situation in Ukraine, without carefully assessing the factors that have led to the use of force and non-observance of legal principles and international norms.

Cuba strongly endorses and supports those principles and norms, which are, particularly for small countries, an essential reference to fight hegemony, abuse of power and injustice.

The U.S. determination to continue NATO’s progressive expansion towards the Russian Federation borders has brought about a scenario with implications of unpredictable scope, which could have been avoided.

The United States’ and NATO’s military moves in recent months towards regions adjacent to the Russian Federation, preceded by the delivery of modern weapons to Ukraine, which altogether add up to a military siege, are well known.

Ignoring for decades the well-founded claims of the Russian Federation for security guarantees and assuming that Russia would remain defenseless in the face of a direct threat to its national security was a mistake.  Peace cannot be achieved by sieging or cornering States.

History will hold the United States accountable for the consequences of an increasingly offensive military doctrine outside NATO’s borders, which threatens international peace, security and stability.

Our concerns grow bigger after NATO’s recent decision to activate, for the first time, NATO Response Force.

Cuba rejects hypocrisy and double standards.  It should be recalled that in 1999 the United States and NATO launched a major aggression against Yugoslavia, a European country that was fragmented with a high cost in human lives in pursuit of geopolitical objectives, disregarding the UN Charter.

The United States and some allies have used force on many occasions.  They have invaded sovereign states to bring about regime changes and interfere in the internal affairs of other nations that do not submit to their interests of domination and defend their territorial integrity and independence. 

They are also responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, which they call “collateral damage”, the displacement of millions of persons and the massive destruction of the geography of our planet because of their plundering wars.

Mister President,

The draft resolution on the situation of Ukraine not adopted in the Security Council on 25 February was not intended as a genuine contribution to resolve the current crisis.  

The text that is now being considered by this General Assembly suffers from the same shortcomings and lacks the necessary balance. 

It does not take into account the legitimate concerns of all the parties involved. It does not acknowledge either the responsibility of those who instigated or deployed aggressive actions that hasten the escalation of this conflict.

Mr. President,

We welcome the start of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.  Dialogue and negotiations, not war, are the only means of solving the conflict. 

Cuba will continue advocating a serious, constructive and realistic diplomatic solution to the current crisis in Europe by peaceful means, ensuring the security and sovereignty of all, and regional and international peace, stability and security.

Many thanks.

http://misiones.minrex.gob.cu/en/un/statements/76-unga-address-ambassador-pedro-luis-pedroso-cuesta-cubas-permanent-representative

******************************

“Cuba champions a solution that guarantees the security and sovereignty of all”

Statement by the Revolutionary Government

The U.S. determination to continue NATO’s progressive expansion towards the Russian Federation borders has brought about a scenario with implications of unpredictable scope, which could have been avoided.

United States’ and NATO’s military moves towards regions adjacent to the Russian Federation in recent months, preceded by the delivery of modern weapons to Ukraine, which together conform a military siege, are well known.

It is impossible to make a rigorous and honest exam of the current situation in Ukraine, without carefully assessing the Russian Federation just claims to the United States and NATO, and the factors that have led to the use of force and non-observance of legal principles and international norms that Cuba strongly supports and, are, particularly for small countries, an essential reference against hegemony, abuse of power and injustice.

Cuba champions the International Law and is committed to the Charter of the United Nations. Cuba will always defend peace and oppose the use or threat to use force against any State.

We deeply regret the loss of innocent civilian lives in Ukraine. The Cuban people have had and continue to have a very close relationship with the Ukrainian people.

History will hold the United States accountable for the consequences of an increasingly offensive military doctrine outside NATO’s borders, which threatens international peace, security and stability.

Our concerns grow bigger after NATO’s recent decision to activate, for the first time, NATO Response Force.

Ignoring for decades the well-founded claims of the Russian Federation concerning security guarantees and assuming that Russia would remain defenseless in the face of a direct threat to its national security was a mistake. Russia has the right to defend itself. Peace cannot be achieved by sieging or cornering States.

The draft resolution on the situation of Ukraine not adopted in the Security Council on 25 February, which will be submitted to the General Assembly, was not intended as a genuine contribution to resolve the current crisis.

On the contrary, it is an unbalanced text, which does not take into account the legitimate concerns of all the parties involved. It does not acknowledge either the responsibility of those who instigated or deployed aggressive actions that hasten the escalation of this conflict.

We call for a serious, constructive and realistic diplomatic solution to the current crisis in Europe by peaceful means, ensuring the security and sovereignty of all, and regional and international peace, stability and security.

Cuba rejects hypocrisy and double standards. It should be recalled that in 1999 the United States and NATO launched a major aggression against Yugoslavia, a European country that was fragmented with a high cost in human lives in pursuit of geopolitical objectives, disregarding the UN Charter.

The United States and some allies have used force on many occasions. They have invaded sovereign states to bring about regime changes and interfere in the internal affairs of other nations that do not submit to their interests of domination and defend their territorial integrity and independence. 

They are also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, which they call “collateral damage”, millions of displaced persons and for the enormous destruction of the geography of our planet because of their plundering wars.

Havana, 26 February 2022

(Cubaminrex)

*************************************

Vietnam

THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIET NAM

PERMANENT MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS

STATEMENT

by H.E. Mr. Dang Hoang Giang,

Permanent Representative

of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the United Nations

at the resumed Eleventh Emergency Special Session

of the General Assembly

on the situation in Ukraine

New York, 07 April 2022

Mr. President,

Viet Nam has maintained a principled and steadfast position in support of resolving conflicts by peaceful means and with respect for the United Nations Charter and international law, including the principles of sovereign equality, respect for independence and territorial integrity of states, and refrainment from the threat or use of force.

We have followed closely with great concerns over the situation in Ukraine, with severe consequences for the people.

It is with extreme concern that we learn of recent reports of great loss of life among innocent civilians.

Viet Nam opposes and condemns all forms of attacks against civilians in violations of international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

Recent information in this regard should be examined based on objective and transparent verification, with the cooperation of parties concerned.

We have time and again reiterated that it is imperative to immediately cease the use of force to avoid further civilian casualties and losses, as well as damages to civilian infrastructure.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, if not resolved peacefully and expeditiously, will continue to affect the entire world, given the spillover effects now seen across regions.

We are therefore convinced that the only way forward is to de-escalate tension, resume dialogue and negotiation through all channels, with a view to achieving long-term solutions that take into consideration the interests and concerns of all parties, in accordance with international law.

There is no viable alternative.

International efforts should be carried out in a prudent manner in order to be conducive to reaching a final solution.

Discussion and decisions undertaken by international organizations and agencies should follow their established procedures and working methods.

In this vein, we are of the view that deliberation and decisions taken by the General Assembly should be based on impartial information, broad consultations with member states.

Dialogue and negotiations among related parties is the most feasible way forward to a peaceful, comprehensive solution.

It is our hope that the United Nations and Member States will work together toward this end.

I thank you./.

STATEMENT by H.E. Mr. Dang Hoang Giang, Permanent Representative of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the United Nations at the Eleventh Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly (mofa.gov.vn)

Mr. President, 

1. More than seventy years ago, the founders of the United Nations  instilled into the Charter their hope and aspiration to save succeeding  generations from the scourge of war. They enshrined in the Charter the  fundamental principles which have become the foundation for contemporary  international law and friendly relations and cooperation among nations.  

2. However, actions not in line with these principles continue to pose  serious threats to international peace and security and development of nations  and the people. They challenge the very relevance and legitimacy of the United  Nations.  

For a number of times, our nation’s own history of enduring wars has  shown that too often wars and conflicts until today stem from obsolete doctrines  of power politics, the ambition of domination and the imposition and the use of  force in settling international disputes. A number of them are associated with  historical legacies, misperception and misunderstanding. 

Viet Nam understands firsthand that once broken out, wars and conflicts  only cause enormous suffering to human beings and grave consequences for  many aspects of the life of nations directly involved as well as of others.  

3. Against this backdrop, Viet Nam has time and again underscored the  importance of respect for international law and the UN Charter. All  international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means, based on the  fundamental principles of international law and the UN Charter.  

These include the principles of sovereign equality, respect for the  political independence and territorial integrity of states, non-interference in 

internal affairs of states, and refrainment from the threat or use of force. All  States, large and small, must adhere to these fundamental principles. 

4. Viet Nam therefore has been extremely concerned over the ongoing  armed conflict in Ukraine, a sovereign member state of the UN. Viet Nam and  other ASEAN member states issued a statement on this matter on 26 February  2022. It is imperative now to exercise utmost restraint and immediately cease  the use of force to avoid further casualties and losses, especial those of civilians.  

We call on concerned parties to de-escalate tension, resume dialogue and  negotiation through all channels, with a view to achieving long-term solutions  that take into consideration the interests and concerns of all parties, in  accordance with international law, in particular the respect for sovereignty and  territorial integrity of states. Such a solution will put an end to the ongoing  suffering and make major contribution to peace, security and development in  Europe and the world at large.  

In this regard, we take note of the meeting between the delegations of  Ukraine and the Russian Federation yesterday and look forward to continued  engagement by relevant parties and early results from the negotiations. At the  same time, it is of critical importance to safeguard the safety, security of the  people and indispensable civilian infrastructure, in line with international  humanitarian law. 

5. To create a favourable environment for such objectives, we call on the  international community, countries in and beyond the region to continue their  support for and facilitation of dialogue among parties. We encourage greater  efforts to scale up humanitarian assistance for civilians and commend  operations by the UN and other partners in the last few days to assist people on  the ground, including refugees.  

It is also essential to ensure safety and security for all foreign nationals  living in Ukraine, including the Vietnamese nationals, as well as the facilitation  of their evacuation. 

I thank you./.

https://vnmission-newyork.mofa.gov.vn/en-us/News/ConsulateNews/Pages/2.3.aspx

***************************************

H.E. Mr. Dang Hoang Giang,

Permanent Representative

of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the United Nations

at the Eleventh Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly

New York, 28 February – 2 March 2022

Mr. President,

1. More than seventy years ago, the founders of the United

Nations instilled into the Charter their hope and aspiration to save

succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

They enshrined in the Charter the fundamental principles which

have become the foundation for contemporary international law and

friendly relations and cooperation among nations.

2. However, actions not in line with these principles continue to

pose serious threats to international peace, security and development

of nations and the people.

They challenge the very relevance and legitimacy of the United

Nations.

For a number of times, our nation’s own history of enduring

wars has shown that too often wars and conflicts until today stem

from obsolete doctrines of power politics, the ambition of domination

and the imposition and the use of force in settling international

disputes. A number of them are associated with historical legacies,

misperceptions and misunderstandings.

Viet Nam understands firsthand that once broken out, wars and

conflicts only cause enormous suffering to human beings and grave

consequences for many aspects of the life of nations directly involved

as well as of others.

3. Against this backdrop, Viet Nam has time and again

underscored the importance of respect for international law and the

UN Charter.

All international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means,

based on the fundamental principles of international law and the UN

Charter. These include the principles of sovereign equality, respect for

the political independence and territorial integrity of states, noninterference

in internal affairs of states, and refrainment from the

threat or use of force.

All States, large and small, must adhere to these fundamental

principles.

4. Viet Nam therefore has been extremely concerned over the

ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine, a sovereign member state of the

UN.

Viet Nam and other ASEAN member states issued a statement

on this matter on 26 February 2022.

It is imperative now to exercise utmost restraint and

immediately cease the use of force to avoid further casualties and

losses, especial those of civilians.

We call on concerned parties to de-escalate tension, resume

dialogue and negotiation through all channels, with a view to

achieving long-term solutions that take into consideration the interests

and concerns of all parties, in accordance with international law, in

particular the respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

Such a solution will put an end to the ongoing suffering and

make major contribution to peace, security and development in

Europe and the world at large.

In this regard, we take note of the meeting between the

delegations of Ukraine and the Russian Federation yesterday and look

forward to continued engagement by relevant parties and early results

from the negotiations.

At the same time, it is of critical importance that relevant parties

safeguard the safety, security of the people and indispensable civilian

infrastructure, in line with international humanitarian law.

5. To create a favourable environment for such objectives, we

call on the international community, countries in and beyond the

region to continue their support for and facilitation of dialogue among

parties.

We encourage greater efforts to scale up humanitarian assistance

for civilians and commend operations by the UN and other partners in

the last few days to assist people on the ground, including refugees.

It is also essential to ensure safety and security for all foreign

nationals living in Ukraine, including the Vietnamese nationals, as

well as the facilitation of their evacuation.

I thank you./.

Cuba and Ukraine: Personal Reflections; Jeffrey Sachs op ed

 U.S. : Cuba  :: Russia : Ukraine 

My evolving thoughts

Petition to President Putin and President Biden   3/25/22

https://tinyurl.com/UkrainePeace2022

Letter to Secretary of State Blinken

Dear Secretary Blinken,

In your press conference in Israel with the Foreign Minister you said, "As you know, and as you’ve heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else, for that matter."

While I share President Biden's moral outrage that President Putin has disqualified himself from leadership in the modern world, I understand and agree with your official statement about regime change.  Specifically of course, "regime change" is the primary Russian objective in Ukraine and a fundamental reason for rejection of its invasion by international opinion, including by most countries that abstained on the United Nations’ resolutions.

However, your words are empty if they are not consistent.  Until the Obama Administration, regime change was an explicit US objective with Cuba.  The Trump Administration publicly resuscitated the bankrupt Monroe Doctrine and the attendant goal of regime change for both Cuba and Venezuela.  As far as I know, the Biden Administration has done nothing to change that in policy or in practice. 

The core goal of our unilateral embargo is and has always been regime change.  The Trump/Pompeo/Bolton/Claver-Carone and, regrettably now, the Biden/Blinken/Sullivan/Gonzalez restrictions on remittances, travel, conferences, hotel use, etc. are intentional instruments for regime change, as are USAID's purported democracy programs.

Even if the US dislikes the regimes in Havana and Caracas and their political orientations as much or more than Russia dislikes the regime in Kyiv and its political orientation, neither country is justified by geography or by relative power to overthrow them.

As I have written before, I believe the path to peace in Ukraine could lie through Cuba.  The dilemma the Biden Administration faces is how to give President Putin a face saving partial "win" without rewarding him with any territory in Ukraine, and certainly with no gain in the power Russia held before its invasion began.

One way that can happen is through a global rebalance.  A key element in the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a trade-off.  Russia withdrew its missiles from Cuba in return for the US withdrawing its missiles from Turkey (and, some report, from Italy). 

In return for Russia respecting Ukraine's sovereignty (i.e. withdrawing troops), the US should respect Cuba's (i.e. immediately restoring Obama's openings and pledging to end the embargo quickly).  An additional step could link Russia ending claims on the Donbas with the US ending claims on the Guantanamo base and prison.

As over the top as these actions may seem, they really are no more than application of the worthy values you have voiced several times including during your appearance with EU High Representative Josep Borrell :

"the principle that one country can’t dictate to another the choices that its citizens would make about their future; the principle that we’re past the time of spheres of influence where one country subjugates its neighbors to its will"

By linking the end of the embargo to peace in Ukraine, the Biden Administration can move beyond the counterproductive domestic political logjam.  It can also argue honestly that ending the embargo is the most effective way to frustrate strategically Russia's efforts to increase its influence and presence in Cuba.

Sincerely,

John McAuliff 

Fund for Reconciliation and Development

************************

Letter to the White House   3/24/22

Dear Mr. President,

Your press conference today after the NATO meeting was exceptional, clearly delineating our united resistance to illegal and horrific Russian aggression in Ukraine.

 The dilemma you face is how to give President Putin a face saving "victory" without rewarding him with any territorial gains in Ukraine, certainly no advantage over Russia's situation before its invasion began.

Perhaps that can happen through a global balance.  As you know, a key element in the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a trade-off.  The US would withdraw its missiles from Turkey (and, some report, from Italy) if Russia withdrew its missiles from Cuba. 

 In return for Russia respecting Ukraine's sovereignty (i.e. withdrawing troops), the US should respect Cuba's (i.e. immediately restoring Obama's openings and pledging to end the embargo).  An additional step could link Russia ending claims on the Donbas with the US ending claims on Guantanamo base and prison.

As over the top as these steps may seem, they really are no more than consistent application of worthy values voiced by Secretary Blinken several times in the last few weeks:

 "the principle that one country can’t dictate to another the choices that its citizens would make about their future; the principle that we’re past the time of spheres of influence where one country subjugates its neighbors to its will"

 You can also argue honestly that ending the embargo is the most effective way to frustrate Russian efforts to increase their influence and presence in Cuba.

 Sincerely,

 John McAuliff

*********************

Unpublished letter to the New York Times     3/16/22

To the Editor,

It does not diminish my abhorrence and anger at Russia's destruction of Ukraine to recall that nineteen years ago I felt the same about shock and awe delivered by the US invasion of Iraq.

My tears for the deaths and refugee travail of countless Ukrainians are more powerful because they link to the emotions I felt fifty years ago at similar images from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

President Zelensky in his own words embodies the memorable sentiment of Ho Chi Minh, "Nothing is more precious than independence and freedom."

When this is over and peace returns, we will face the challenge of reconstruction of Ukraine, return of its people to their homes and reconciliation with Russia. 

The people of Indochina and Iraq have not forgotten or forgiven their suffering, but they have found a new more positive relationship with us.  In the heat of combat, it is hard to imagine that Ukrainians and Americans can do the same with Russians, but we must find a way.

John McAuliff

                                                      

*************************  

Background

A frequent opprobrium from official circles in Cuba is to denounce dissidents as annexationists.   The intention is to say that these are people who believe Cubans would be better off if dominated again by the US economy and political system.     

This is a reflection of a 19th century argument among Cubans about whether they should be seeking better autonomous status under Spain, annexation to the US or independence.  There were several military expeditions from the US by annexationists, including one that ironically brought Cuba its national flag.  One source of annexationism was the dream of slave holding southern states to add Cuba to their number.  

Given that a strategic relationship with Russia is necessary to provide support against the sixty year US embargo and agenda of regime change, how will Cuban political leaders address the annexationist character of President Putin's goals with Ukraine as well as his pro-separatist tactics in eastern Ukraine?

Living with contradiction is not a uniquely Cuban phenomena.

Regarding Ukraine Secretary Blinken spoke to the UN Security Council about "basic principles that sustain peace and security ...  The principle of national sovereignty."  How does that principle apply to the US embargo of Cuba, denounced every year at the UN with virtual unanimity?   

Put more colloquially, Blinken said on CNN: "what's at stake here, Dana, are some very basic principles of international relations... a principle like the fact that you cannot now, in the 21st century, purport to exert a sphere of influence to try to subjugate your neighbors to your will."

Do as we say, not as we do.  Another kind of US exceptionalism?

*************

As a rank amateur on Russia and Ukraine but having much experience with Vietnam and Cuba, I suggest a Hail Mary Pass to end the conflict based on two factors:

1)  The parallel of attitudes, assumptions and histories of the US with Cuba and Russia with Ukraine. Our Monroe Doctrine is not so different from their Near Abroad as the Russians have noted, cited in Fiona Hill's testimony during the first Trump impeachment.

2)  The model of the solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis.   In return for Russian withdrawal of its weapons, we promised never to invade Cuba again and to remove our missiles from Turkey.

My question is whether a comparable compromise is that in return for Russian respect of Ukraine's sovereignty the US agrees to respect Cuba's, i.e. immediately undo Trump's attack on Obama's historic openings, and commit to ending the unilateral economic warfare of the embargo.    The big countries will also have to agree to not use the small country neighbor of their adversary for military or strategic advantage.

Would Putin consider those steps enough of a global achievement to back off further military action? 

Would Biden welcome a non-domestic basis for ending the embargo, probably the most transformative action the US can take regarding Cuban society and politics?

Cuba and Ukraine have warm relations so they might find the pairing that protected the sovereignty of both positive.  I noted that the press accounts of the phone conversation between Presidents Putin and Diaz-Canel said nothing about Ukraine.

The icing on the cake would be to get the Russians out of the Donbas.  Maybe that could be paired with getting us out of Guantanamo.

**************

Aggression and defense lie somewhat in the eye of the beholder.  We saw Russian missiles in Cuba as a threat to us.  The Cubans saw them as a defense against another Bay of Pigs and ongoing CIA sponsored violent intrusions.

From our perspective, it was Russia's strategically destabilizing intervention in support of Cuba's demand for independence of us that brought us to the brink.  JFK was being pushed to invade and even to use nuclear weapons.  He had the courage and wisdom to say no.

Our strategically destabilizing support for Ukraine's independence is bringing the Russians to the brink.  It seems that Putin is doing his own pushing.  Does he have the courage and wisdom to pull himself back?

Both big countries justify changing the strategic balance through the smaller country as being done to protect the smaller country.

The US agreed to let Cuba go its own way because the cost was too high to stop them, although it did not stop us from making them suffer the embargo and regime change pressures for six decades.

Putin might come to a similar conclusion on Ukraine, and will no doubt continue to make them pay a price in the Donbas and internal instability.

The Russians have reinserted themselves very visibly with their allies in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba in the last few weeks.  In addition to Putin's call with Diaz Canel, Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov has just been in Havana.  I have some doubt that Russia really wants the Cubans out from under the embargo but they could not admit that if the US put it on the table.

Getting the US to restore Obama's engagement on the way to lifting the embargo is an attainable victory for Putin.  Would it make up for acceding to lose Ukraine from direct control as we acceded to losing Cuba?

The irony is that if we lifted the punishment of the embargo, our influence with Cuba and with Cubans would grow.  Can the same be said for Russia's influence in Ukraine over time if it backed off and let Donbas reintegrate?

Geography and culture are powerful mutual attractions if big country arrogance does not intervene.

I don't know whether it would be harder for Putin to "give up" Ukraine than it would be for Biden to "give up" Cuba.

(Would Sen Menendez rather see Ukraine invaded and destroyed than free Cuba of the embargo?  Would he accept a free and unharmed Ukraine as a reasonable trade off for letting Cuba stay oppressed--which he can't do anything about anyway?)

****************

Supplemental reading:

President Putin's Speech to Justify Invading Ukraine   February 21, 2022

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/02/22/vladimir-putin-full-text-of-february-21-2022-speech/

"Cuba as an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder"
Louis A. Pérez, Jr., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

https://cubapeopletopeople.blogspot.com/2019/05/louis-perez-cuba-as-obsessive.html

"The West Is Sleepwalking Into War in Ukraine"    (see comment below*)

Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy   February 23, 2022      

"The US should compromise on NATO to save Ukraine"

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Project Syndicate   February 21, 2022

The writer is director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University 

If US President Joe Biden and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin do manage to hold a summit on Ukraine, what should Biden’s approach be? 

Biden has said repeatedly that the US is open to diplomacy with Russia, but on the issue that Moscow has most emphasised — Nato enlargement — there has been no American diplomacy at all. Putin has repeatedly demanded that the US forswear Nato’s enlargement into Ukraine, while Biden has repeatedly asserted that membership of the alliance is Ukraine’s choice. 

If a summit does materialise in the days ahead, and in the planned meeting this week between US secretary of state Antony Blinken and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, the US should propose a guarantee that Nato will not enlarge to include Ukraine in return for a full withdrawal of Russian forces from the Donbas region, a demobilisation along the Russia-Ukraine border and an assurance of Ukrainian sovereignty. If the US won’t do this, then France and Germany should step forward instead. 

This would inevitably lead to cries of appeasement. Many insist that Nato enlargement is not the real issue for Putin and that he wants to recreate the Russian empire, pure and simple. Everything else, including Nato enlargement, they claim, is a mere distraction. 

This is utterly mistaken. Russia has adamantly opposed Nato expansion towards the east for 30 years, first under Boris Yeltsin and now Putin. Before that, the Soviet Union largely opposed Nato expansion, too. 

It is easy to understand why. The US would not be very happy were Mexico to join a China-led military alliance, nor was it content when Fidel Castro’s Cuba aligned with the USSR 60 years ago. 

Neither the US nor Russia wants the other’s military on their doorstep. Pledging no Nato enlargement is not appeasement. It does not cede Ukrainian territory. It does not undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty. It would in fact help to secure it. Ukraine should aspire to resemble the non-Nato members of the EU: Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden. 

Americans can learn much from the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. As the historian Martin Sherwin showed in his book Gambling with Armageddon, the crisis was resolved by a deft compromise. The Soviet Union agreed to remove its missiles from Cuba while the US agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey. 

The American public never appreciated this, alas, because President John F Kennedy insisted on keeping the US removal of missiles from Turkey secret. Kennedy did not want to appear to speak for all of Nato, and sought to protect himself from charges of appeasement from the US right. The public therefore believed that the crisis ended with Soviet capitulation, not compromise. 

Despite claims to the contrary, the western nations offered informal assurances to the Soviet Union that Nato would not enlarge to the east after German unification. The US and allies acted deceitfully, using sophistical arguments to claim that previous pledges were not binding. It was especially reckless in 2008 for President George W Bush to open the door to Ukraine’s (and Georgia’s) Nato membership. 

Biden and the US foreign policy establishment has so far refused to reconsider Nato enlargement for three reasons. First, they fear the charge of appeasement. Second, the US wants the prerogative to puts its military in any country that will have it, even if that disregards the legitimate security concerns of neighbouring states. Third, the US foreign policy establishment has long failed to acknowledge valid Russian security concerns that go back to the second world war and even earlier. 

Russia has long feared invasions from the west, whether by Napoleon, Hitler or latterly Nato. For this reason, cooler and wiser US foreign policy strategists, including Bill Clinton’s defence secretary William Perry, the great statesman and diplomat George Kennan and former ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, argued that Nato enlargement to the east after the demise of the USSR was unnecessary, reckless and provocative. 

If war comes, Putin would of course deserve the blame and global opprobrium. Russia’s threats are thuggish and dangerous. Yet as misguided as the Russian actions are, American intransigence regarding Nato enlargement is also utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and Nato compromise with Russia — one that respects Russia’s legitimate security interests while fully backing Ukraine’s sovereignty.

https://www.ft.com/content/b5886606-4d7d-41af-87c1-8d9993722e51

*****************************

*  Comment on Foreign Policy article by Stephen Walt

It is a pity that the perspective of Dr. Walt and of Dr. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University were not heard within the US government or even in the hawk infatuated liberal media, including CNN and MSNBC.

 Unfortunately President Putin appears to be as historically and culturally insulated as US leaders and has let his dreams lead to the self-indulgence of war.

 The fantasists on the US side project us as supporting the kind of insurgence that defeated us in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, or recapitulating the victory of the Mujahidin (and look what that got us on 9/11).  I don't know enough about Ukraine to know whether a  nationalist insurgency can eventually overcome a Russian army sustained client state, but I do know that it will take tens of thousands of deaths, both military and civilian, and economic devastation to get there.

 One consistent aspect of US and Russian interventions are the victims we create and leave behind.

 The question now is whether there is anything that can be done to avoid another decade long humanitarian disaster.   On the one hand, President Putin has to get some buyer's remorse from the strength of Ukrainian resistance, the impact of sanctions or mass and high level antiwar sentiment in Moscow.  On the other the US and Europe have to give him a face saving achievement, beyond the destruction of Ukraine's military capacity.

 Maybe it could be along the lines of serious compromise about NATO membership as suggested by Walt and Sachs.  Plus maybe we can take a page from the solution for the Cuban Missile Crisis and provide a strategic trade-off elsewhere in the world.

 If we took our rhetoric seriously of sovereignty and big countries not imposing on smaller neighbors we could link Russia respecting Ukraine's self-determination in return to us respecting Cuba's, e.g. restoring Obama's engagement and ending our unilateral embargo.

 https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/23/united-states-europe-war-russia-ukraine-sleepwalking/

Former Ambassador Cabañas Challenges State Department Role in Cuba

 

The virtual overflow of the State Department and its office in Havana

José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez

February 17, 2022
Translated by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

Department of State. Photo: Alastair Pike/ Archive

In recent months, both Cuban netizens and foreign diplomats residing in Cuba have been surprised by the open manner in which both the State Department in Washington and its embassy in Havana have incorporated into their daily routine the issuance of judgments and opinions about the Cuban internal reality, which they publish and reiterate without any shame. Although the practice has covered several platforms, it has become more present on Twitter, which is supposed to be less popular than Facebook, but where government officials, academics and decision-makers of various kinds are theoretically more present.

This digital exercise, which now has more intensity than during Trump's disorder, began to become more present to the same extent that the dreamers of the end of the Cuban Revolution felt that the ravages of the COVID19 pandemic, together with the damage caused by unilateral coercive measures (blockade), would cause a social explosion in Cuba.

The State Department and its diplomatic representation in Havana left their traces everywhere in the events before and after July 11, but even so they had a certain modesty in those days, to avoid being seen as the direct handlers of the "demonstrators". ”. As the days went by and the "leaders" of those events bought plane tickets to settle abroad and publicly disqualified each other, the American bureaucrats from the Potomac felt the need to carry out a greater protagonism, which became traumatic as the date of November 20 (which later was 15) approached.

For this last show, they had sold tickets at high prices and faced the danger that there would be no staging, as indeed happened. The event most feared by the puppeteers occurred: the stage set of the puppet fell and the child audience finally saw that the puppets did not have a life of their own, but were managed by others.

Until today it is not known if the main bets on the probable Antillean holocaust were made from Havana, or in Washington. The truth is that forecasts were sent from the State Department to the Office of the National Security Advisor and from there to the White House. This intense exchange of memos and proposals resulted in the opening of the USAID coffers and, especially as of September 2021, more funds began to flow to buy videos, statements, blog comments and as many other devices as necessary. to present to the world and to US public opinion a virtual state of affairs on Cuba.

After all, if a high percentage of the US population still considers that the 2020 presidential elections were "stolen" right under their noses, how could they not think that a similar percentage would take as truth the headline that the Cuban people had rebelled and that those who did not were contained by repression. If for four years the State Department insisted that non-existent sounds created undiagnosable illnesses in its diplomatic personnel in Havana, and many people believed it, then how could one not assimilate that the Cuban government would attack its own people, with a little reiteration.

And in this circumstance, the US authorities once again showed that the multilateral framework that humanity has built in order to survive is useful to them, only if it supports the existence of a single-pole of power. The Vienna Convention? Respect the internal affairs of other countries? Observe the limits of the sovereignty of others? Small details.

And so, in an empty theater, DOS officials have been playing on Twitter the score that was written for third parties. The difference with other crises built in several countries is that in those the infantry has been local and the artillery has acted from afar. But in this case, the conspirators were left with almost no infantry and have had to assume that role themselves, albeit virtually.

Again, in the absence of evidence, evidence, recordings, and photos, tweets from the State Department's Western Hemisphere division have filled that gap. By the way, the lack of photos to support their theories was resolved in a masterful way: to use as their own, to support the thesis of the rebellion, the photos that massively testified to the support of the majority of the Cuban people for their authorities. For them it is not theft, that is called borrowing without the owner's knowledge.

But when someone decides to forget the rules to which the diplomatic services of all countries are bound, it is overlooked also that in said exercise reciprocity is practiced every day. What would have happened if some official Cuban representative, or simply a citizen of that origin, had been involved in the demonstrations for the murder of George Floyd? police sweep of Lafayette Park right in front of the White House, during 2020?. By the way, if there were citizens of Cuban origin present at the events of January 6, 2021 at the Capitol, but they were members of the Proud Boys organization, who before and after those events went to show their masculinity before the Cuban embassy with obscenities and abrasive gestures.

In other words, with their irresponsible behavior on social networks, and especially on Twitter, the US Foreign Ministry and its employees have opened wide a door so that others can do the same regarding their internal problems. But Cuba has not made use of that opportunity, nor will it, out of respect for the norms of international coexistence and, even more so, out of respect for those who have struggled to claim their rights in that country for decades, genuinely and without the need to be guided or directed from the outside.

But the background will be reflected for the academy, or for third parties that in the future will be able to tell them: what are you complaining about if you did the same thing to the Cubans. They are the risks that are run when arrogance is overwhelmed.

In addition to the occurrence of the event itself, it is interesting to appreciate its quality. When basically the same texts are reiterated mechanically, when the copying and pasting between the State Department and its embassy is so evident, when the contradictions between figures and supposed sources hardly need to be explained, then it is worth asking if the one who commits Such mistakes are made simply due to a lack of creative ability, or to demonstrate that they are "following an indication". And certainly, that doubt remains.

The other thing is to build a so-called "timeline" for beginners, which in itself would discredit the sources of the aforementioned digital bombardments. The aforementioned division of Western Hemisphere affairs, which theoretically attends to and is moved by what is happening in more than 30 nations and territories, has repeatedly fallen silent at a time when mass murders have taken place in the region, when the constitutional order in several countries, when drug cartels have shaken entire cities, when mass graves have been discovered, or in the face of the barbarities committed by human traffickers. Apparently, these are inherent realities of the democratic system that they promote together with their servants from the OAS secretariat, in which it is not necessary to notice because they are not news. But for Cuba there are other rules.

However, those who have mastered the techniques to understand what really happens in the networks pay attention to other interesting details. How many retweets have these abrasive and disrespectful messages against Cuba generated, how many likes (or likes), how many impressions (how many times a content has been seen), how many interactions of Internet users. All these data, taken as a whole, would show that the disrespect for the sovereignty of others has been sterile, the attention generated with the Goebblelian repetition of the contents has been minimal, if we stick to the totals of the population in Cuba, in the United States UU and worldwide, including Hialeah.

It cannot be avoided that the subconscious compares this exercise with what happened months after the US defeat at Playa Girón (Bay of Pigs for them). Months before, the CIA (and we have not talked about the agency in this text) had installed a radio station on Swan Island (we must not add that illegally), which was supposed to guarantee with its propaganda that the attacked people of Cuba would receive with open arms to the members of Brigade 2506 , popularly known as mercenaries. The fact is that once they had been defeated and under the custody of the Cuban authorities, Radio Swan continued to issue calls to "burn the cane fields" and "advance on the capital." It's hard not to remember the background.

The other thing is that the American bureaucracy on average is not well paid compared to the salaries of the informal world. There are officials, sometimes at the end of their careers, who worry about their retirement and future life, which is why they sometimes put an emphasis on their actions, beyond what common rationality explains. And it is that in that of being very emphatic in the attacks against Cuba, with a specific joy and beyond the instructions, the case of James Cason, a former head of the interests office in Havana, also comes to mind, who At the beginning of this century he was characterized by his stridency, which marginalized him even with respect to the rest of the resident diplomats in Havana.

On repeated occasions, foreign officials and visitors wondered the reason for his actions, especially when they knew that he did not have the slightest chance of promotion in the US diplomatic ranking. And the explanation came after his departure: Cason aspired and was elected to the post of mayor of Coral Gables, Florida, emporium of the remnants of the rancid Cuban bourgeoisie and others who were not but aspired.

And please, do not consider that this case is unique or sporadic. Several years before Cason, Mr. Dennis Hayes, who had been nothing more and nothing less than Coordinator of the Cuba Bureau at the Department of State, was hired by the Cuban American National Foundation as head of its office in Washington. In other words, when it comes to the "case" against Cuba, the lines of decency are often crossed, codes of ethics (if they exist) are not followed, and it is difficult to know who pays whom and definitively say who is the boss.

http://www.cubadebate.cu/opinion/2022/02/17/el-desborde-virtual-del-departamento-de-estado-y-su-oficina-en-la-habana/print/

https://groups.io/g/cubanews/topic/89256005