Understand intervention.
TAKE ACTION
Learn why Black Lives Matter opposes the embargo on Cuba and help take action to end it.
Confront irresponsible calls for military invasion as a way to “help” other nations.
When considering proposed U.S. interventions, consider: What would the impact of sanctions or military actions be on everyday people, including those protesting? How might the proposed actions align with U.S. interests? Do U.S. policies create current poor conditions in the country?
GET EDUCATED
By Andrew Lee (he/him)
Last month saw large demonstrations in Cuba against food and medicine shortages resulting from both “the COVID-19 pandemic and U.S. sanctions” (CNN). Some participants demanded the resignation of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel in heated protests where police deployed tear gas and some demonstrators threw rocks and overturned a police car. Many in the United States have rallied behind the slogan SOS Cuba to demand the American government do something, and in late July the U.S. government increased sanctions against the island (PBS).
Police violence against protestors is an unacceptable tactic used by repressive governments around the world. Fighting protestors with tear gas, a weapon banned by the Geneva Conventions (USA Today), is cause for condemnation whether it’s on the streets of Havana or Portland, Oregon (NPR). It’s natural that people around the world wish to stand with the Cuban people.
But solidarity is getting twisted into something more sinister. One surefire way to release tensions on the island would be to end the U.S. embargo. U.S. law prohibits American companies from doing business with Cuba. It punishes foreign companies who do business with Cuba. The embargo prevents Cuba from importing food production equipment and medical supplies, creating the conditions that started the protests (Al Jazeera). In June, 184 U.N. member states voted to condemn the embargo. Only Israel and the U.S. voted against (U.N.). But when American journalists and leaders talk about supporting the Cuban people, ending the embargo isn’t on the agenda.
Instead, we’re told that this is a “golden opportunity” for President Biden to “preside over the liberation of Cuba” (Local 10). But the people in the streets aren’t clamoring for a military invasion. As with protest movements in the United States, protestors have a variety of goals. Some want immediate remedies. Others support more wide-ranging reforms. Some dissidents don’t want capitalism but are instead trying to push the Cuban government to the left in favor of “socialism done from below” (Dissent). But U.S. reporting focuses almost exclusively on voices in favor of capitalist reforms.
And selective, self-interested support of certain Cuban protestors to the exclusion of others goes beyond reporting. Since 2017, USAID, a government agency partnered with the U.S. military (USAID), has funneled over $67 million to Cuban dissidents (Cuba Money Project), continuing a long history of American interference. In 1912, U.S. soldiers suppressed Afro-Cuban protests for racial justice (BBC). In the 1950s, U.S. companies controlled 90% of Cuban mines, 80% of utilities and railroads, and almost half the nation’s sugar fields. “In return, Cuba got hedonistic tourists, organized crime, and General Fugencio Batista,” the U.S.-supported autocrat who ruled the country (Smithsonian). After the Cuban Revolution, when the government nationalized American companies profiting off of the island, the U.S. launched the current devastating blockade.
If the U.S. had a sincere commitment to human rights in Cuba, it could end the embargo that cuts off much-needed supplies. It could close the torture camp it runs on the island, the Guantánamo Bay Detention Center. The U.S. could immediately do these on its own, but unlike regime change, they would not be in the U.S. government’s interests (CODE PINK).
There are human rights abuses happening in countries around the globe, including our own. France continues to pass discriminatory laws against hijab-wearers with almost half of the country considering “Muslims a threat to national identity” (Time). The United Arab Emirates incarcerates citizens for peaceful political speech and “bans political opposition” (Amnesty International). Torture is “widespread” in Kazahsztan (Amnesty) while dozens of municipalities in Poland have declared themselves “LGBTI-free zones” (Amnesty). All of these countries are strong U.S. allies. Human rights only seem to be a frontpage story when they occur in countries the U.S. government already opposes.
Cuba, and other countries the U.S. targets, have real problems. Their citizens, like those of any nation, have legitimate reasons to protest. But when we hear that the American solution is immediately to “liberate” them, we should ask if an agenda was in place long before. We should recall what happened after “liberation” of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. There were problems and protests in all three of these countries. But it’s hard to believe that many Iraqi, Afghani, or Libyan protestors found their lives better post-invasion. The U.S. government only ever cynically deployed concern for their residents’ well-being to justify actions that made it much worse. The purpose of the State Department or Pentagon isn’t to promote solidarity. It’s to promote the interests of the U.S. government and American corporations.
When we reject their self-interested war plans, we can begin to choose real solidarity, instead.
Key Takeaways
Cuban protests have led to calls for America to “liberate” the island.
The U.S. in fact created the main reason for the protests, food and medicine shortages, through an embargo condemned by almost every nation in the world.
We hear much more about human rights abuses in countries the U.S. government opposes than countries it counts as allies.