UN rejects US blockade of Cuba

For the 20th consecutive year the United Nations has resoundingly rejected the United States' illegal and unjust economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba.
 

This afternoon the UN General Assembly supported resolution A/66/L4 which calls for the end of the blockade. 186 countries voted for the resolution with only two countries – America and Israel – supporting a continuation of the policy. 
 

Countries from across the world – from China to Mexico and from Algeria to South Africa – queued up to lend their political and diplomatic support to Cuba in the debate over the non-binding resolution. The representative from Uruguay noted that “we have witnessed an increase in the restrictions on Cuba’s transactions with third countries” and the blockade is “counter to the principles of justice and human rights, hampers and delays development and seriously harms the Cuban economy”.

As the Indian representative declared, the extraterritorial application of the embargo combined with the denial of access to the US market, acts to greatly and unfairly increase the cost of Cuba’s imports.

The delegate from Bolivia – referencing President John F Kennedy’s “ich bin ein Berliner” quote – said the slogan of our time should be “I am a Cuban” as the Cuban people remain an “inspiration and example” to the rest of the world. He continued, “if we truly believe in democracy then we must listen to the countries in this room”

Venezuela sent a message of support and solidarity to the Miami 5 and appealed to the United States for their release and the return of Rene Gonzalez to his homeland.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said that the sanctions have caused direct economic damages of close to $1 trillion to the Cuban people and that President Obama had done little to change this.

"Despite the false image of flexibility that the current U.S. administration intends to portray, the blockade and the sanctions remain intact," Rodriguez told the assembly.

"Why doesn't President Obama's administration take care of the U.S. problems and leave us Cubans alone to solve ours in peace?"

The blockade of Cuba was imposed on 7 February 1962 and next year marks its 50th anniversary. It remains an anachronistic echo of Cold War politics which has no legal justification. It runs contrary to America's ostensible belief in the supremacy of the free market and is a purely political decision motivated by the threat of the Cuban example which prioritises people over profit and champions free healthcare, education and internationalism.
 

The blockade will only be defeated by solidarity and concerted political will. Anyone interested in fighting against this ongoing injustice should join the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and get involved with their End It Now campaign.

Shake Your Moneymaker, Mr Osborne

"I've got the brains, you've got the looks. Let's make lots of money"

Prior to the World Cup in 1998, the England football squad famously amused themselves by dropping song titles into media interviews. Talismanic centre-half Tony Adams declared “I’m so excited” about the upcoming championship whilst Alan Shearer insisted the team were keeping their feet on the ground and not “dancing on the ceiling”. It was a bunch of rich kids playing a harmless game. And even Alan Shearer was funny.

Fast-forward 13 years and a different bunch of rich kids – the coalition government – are playing a much more dangerous game with our economy. Where Shearer and co. referenced well-known 80s tunes, we now have Osborne et al regurgitating stale references to the "economic mess" the previous Labour government left us in. And whilst England's japes earned them a few quid in bets with teammates, the coalition's financial tomfoolery is going to cost us all dearly. The only 80s throw-back being cited now is Maggie Thatcher. 

Re-worded, re-packaged and repeated ad infinitum, the phrase has prefixed Conservative and Lib Dem responses to every question since the formation of the coalition:

"How many slices of toast for breakfast, George?" asks Mrs Osborne.

"Two please – although if it wasn't for the economic mess Labour left us with, I could probably afford to have three ... and make sure you serve them on our Ming Dynasty plates," replies our humble Chancellor.

We have been pummelled into merciless submission and bitter acceptance through its endless repetition. It has allowed the government to force through ruthless cuts by sidelining Labour and marginalising economic alternatives.  

However – although it is a powerful political weapon to relentlessly demonise Labour's economic record – it is also a double-edged sword. It does indeed damage Labour's credibility, but it also creates a culture of gloom and cynicism that undermines consumer and business confidence. The irony is that – whilst the economy under the Con-Dems flat lines – Labour’s more interventionist policy saved us from depression and sowed the seeds of growth through positive action and investment.

According to Ernst & Young Item Club, our recovery has slowed and our economy has "stalled at a dangerous junction". The simple reason for this stagnation is that – because government economic chauvinism has engendered low confidence – banks are not lending and people are not spending. Furthermore, draconian austerity and rising unemployment further erodes confidence.

As David Blanchflower, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, states in an open letter to George Osborne: 

It hasn't helped that you have described the economy as "bankrupt" when clearly it was not, and also compared the British economy with that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are locked in monetary union, do not have their own central bank and cannot depreciate their currency or engage in credit easing. With such unpatriotic talk, you and other coalition leaders have caused business and consumer confidence... to collapse. They are at frighteningly low levels and I suspect they will fall a lot further unless you act quickly. 

Negative rhetoric is essential to force through ideological cuts to public services and welfare provision, but by constantly talking-down the economy, the government has undermined our chances of recovery. The economy requires positive language and action to flourish. From cutting VAT, payroll tax-breaks, bringing back the Future Jobs Fund, linking corporation tax to unemployment or introducing a Robin Hood Tax and Tobin Tax, there are numerous policies which would increase employment and stimulate growth.

If economics – like football – is a game of two halves, then now is the time for some inspirational half-time words and positive substitutions from the gaffer. The coalition might be committing economic suicide, but with unprecedented and irreversible public sector cuts, they’ll go down in history as hard-nosed neo-liberal martyrs.

Time for a tax on unemployment

According to Karl Marx, capitalism requires a reserve army of surplus labour to squeeze working conditions and maximise profit: 

Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction. The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it, i.e., when the overpopulation is the greatest.

This inevitably means a rise in unemployment and, with unemployment rising by 80,000 in the second quarter of this year, we can see how the conditions of working people are being attacked whilst financial institutions remain protected. As public sector pay is frozen, jobs are cut and trade union rights are eroded, the government’s package of quantitive easing will go straight to the banks. It’s effectively a second bail-out which banks will use to service debt rather than inject money into the economy to stimulate growth.

What we really need is full employment and a population with disposable income to spend and kick-start the economy – but the dialectic interests of the capitalist class and working people makes this impossible.

I was surprised, therefore, to read a letter today in the Morning Star by Bill Banning which offered a relatively simple solution to this diametrically opposed impasse:

Let's have a tax on unemployment, a tax to create jobs ... The unemployment or austerity tax would be linked directly to the rise and fall of the labour market and would be applied to company profits, including banks, financial institutions, multinationals, millionaires and oligarchs.

It would be based upon the cost of unemployment to the economy so that it would increase as unemployment goes up and reduce as it comes down.

This would mean that those doing well despite the recession would share the pain and at the same time provide a positive incentive for job creation.

Surely if, as we are constantly being told, we are all in this together, there could not be a fairer, more equitable system than one in which those that are suffering most from the austerity measures demanded by the need to reduce our national debt can clearly see that their sacrifice is acknowledged, and that those able to reduce their hardship by virtue of their good fortune are doing so.

Bravo Bill! A simple but effective idea to link corporation tax to unemployment. If Ed Miliband is serious about favouring ‘producers’ over ‘predators’ then this would be a good first step to re-engineer capitalism in favour of the people currently paying for the costly mistakes of financial institutions.