Caricom has Failed in having the Cuban Embargo Lifted

The ultimate goal of the embargo against Cuba was to cripple the Cuban economy and force President Fidel Castro’s hand in changing his style of governing, all efforts have failed in this respect

"THE CUBAN EMBARGO SHOULD BE STOPPED!"

By: Dr. Kevin Turnquest-Alcena

After 50 years as an organization, the Caricom has been ineffective at having the Cuban embargo lifted. It’s a travesty that America is still trying to weaponize Cuba in this modern day and time.

To my inquiring readers, what is an embargo one may ask? Well, according to Wikipedia it is, “the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country or state or group of countries.”

Four countries the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) have implemented U.S. sanctions against are: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The continuous and age old assault on Cuba is tantamount to immoral conduct.

They are willing to work with countries such as: Vietnam, whom they were at war with and China because of some benefit to them, then why not Cuba? We have to collectively find a way for America to understand that Cuba needs to be a part of and coexist with the global community. It is time America realizes Cuba’s political system, as well as the structure of how Cuba achieves its revolution is not going to disappear.

Robert Zubrin stated that, “The U.S. trade embargo on Cuba is almost completely ineffective, as many other countries, including the European Union, do not honor it.” The Biden Administration must consider the realities of the Cuban people. Yes, the there are some deep geo-politics in regards to individuals who do not like what is going on in Cuba, but it does not negate the fact that this issue needs to be readdressed.

Former President Barak Obama understood the need for open dialogue about the embargo as was stated in his address to the Cuban people during his visit to Havana. He said that, “...on December 17th 2014, President Castro and I announced that the United States and Cuba would begin a process to normalize relations between our countries. Since then, we have established diplomatic relations and opened embassies. We've begun initiatives to cooperate on health and agriculture, education and law enforcement. We've reached agreements to restore direct flights and mail service. We've expanded commercial ties, and increased the capacity of Americans to travel and do business in Cuba.”

In February 1962, President John F. Kennedy proclaimed an embargo on trade between the United States and Cuba, in response to certain actions taken by the Cuban Government, and directed the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury to implement the embargo. The Cuban embargo solely exists because they stand in solidarity, choosing to operate their political system the way they want.

This continued condemnation by America is unjust and inhumane, especially for a country that promotes freedom of speech. This embargo has majorly impacted the Cuban economy and has resulted in a $144 billion loss in the trading economy. While the ultimate goal of the embargo was to cripple the economy and force President Fidel Castro’s hand in changing his style of governing, all efforts have failed in this respect.

The embargo limits the people of Cuba from accessing the internet to support their small businesses, take online U.S. courses, and use financial services like PayPal, yet Cuba has continued to exist and survive without the support of the American government.

America claims that the embargo is for the betterment of the Cuban people, yet it does more harm to the people than good. Its licensing requirements prevent food, medicine, medical equipment and humanitarian aid assistance from reaching Cubans.

Nonetheless, these restrictions have only encouraged the Cuban people to be innovative in their approach to taking care of the citizens of their country. Cuba managed to develop its own COVID-19 vaccine. Their development included the research, production, and rollout of the vaccine, which resulted in a 90% vaccination rate.

Cuba has educated Africa and The Caribbean in medicine and engineering, just to name a few. They now have over 2,000 institutes as result of the 1959 revolution. Cuba has developed one of the best healthcare systems in the world. This was achieved by instituting 23 medical schools and educating those students for free. This has resulted in one of the highest doctor to patient ratios in the world, 8 for every 1,000 citizen. Gender equality is also held in high regard with women having just has much opportunities for education as men.

Cuba ranks second in the world in terms of most female representation in the country’s main governing body with a Congress that is 53 percent female. Education is the under lying cause of such achievements with Cuba having a 96% literacy rate.

So, the real question is, has the embargo really attained its goal of suppressing the Cuban country? Has it really achieved its aim of stopping trade with other countries? The resounding answer is No!

Daniel 2:21 says, “And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:” Hence, this then begs the question as to what is America’s present goal for reinforcing the embargo.

What purpose does it really serve for continuing their separation from Cuba? Would it not be more beneficial and useful if they worked with Cuba, rather than against them?

The reality is after 64 years of oppressing Cuba through the embargo, it has still not altered their political systems and way of life. As Allison Pujol writer for The Michigan Daily said, “Cuba’s heads of states recognized fairly quickly that the United States was not essential to the island’s economic future.

And thus, like the embargo, Cuba’s one-party system has remained intact with little to no visible change.” I end with the words of the man at the center of it all: “Capitalism has no moral and ethical values: everything is for sale... it is impossible to educate people in such an environment: people become selfish, and sometimes turn into bandits” (Fidel Castro).

Source 

U.S. Senators reintroduced bipartisan legislation to lift the Cuba trade embargo

U.S. Senators Klobuchar, Moran, Murphy, Marshall, Warren Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Lift The Trade Embargo on Cuba

The Freedom to Export to Cuba Act would eliminate legal barriers preventing Americans from doing business in Cuba and create new economic opportunities by boosting U.S. exports and allowing Cubans greater access to American goods

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) reintroduced bipartisan legislation to lift the Cuba trade embargo.  The Freedom to Export to Cuba Act would eliminate legal barriers preventing Americans from doing business in Cuba and create new economic opportunities by boosting U.S. exports and allowing Cubans greater access to American goods.  The legislation repeals key provisions of existing laws that block Americans from doing business in Cuba, but keeps in place laws that address human rights or property claims against the Cuban government.

“I have long pushed to reform our relationship with Cuba, which for decades has been defined by conflicts of the past instead of looking toward the future,” said Klobuchar.  “By ending the trade embargo with Cuba once and for all, our bipartisan legislation will turn the page on the failed policy of isolation while creating a new export market and generating economic opportunities for American businesses.” 

“The unilateral trade embargo on Cuba blocks our own farmers, ranchers and manufacturers from selling into a market only 90 miles from our shoreline, while foreign competitors benefit at our expense,” said Moran.  “This legislation will expand market opportunities for U.S. producers by allowing them to compete on a level playing field with other countries.  It is time to amend our own laws to give U.S. producers fair access to market to consumers in Cuba.”

“We can expand opportunities for American businesses and farmers to trade with Cuba while still holding the Cuban government accountable for its human rights record.  This bipartisan legislation is a smart fix that will create American jobs and benefit the Cuban people,” said Murphy.

“I’m proud to sign onto the Freedom to Export to Cuba Act.  It’s important for the United States to boost our economic opportunities and increase market access for American-made goods.  Repealing the current legal restrictions and trade embargo on Cuba allows for Kansas farmers, ranchers and manufacturers to expand their businesses to Cuba and opens the door to a large export market, while leaving in place measures to address human rights abuses,” said Marshall.

“It is long past time for us to normalize relations with Cuba,” said Warren.  “This legislation takes important steps to remove barriers for U.S. trade and relations between our two countries and moves us in the right direction by increasing economic opportunities for Americans and the Cuban people.”

The Freedom to Export to Cuba Act repeals the current legal restrictions against doing business with Cuba, including the original 1961 authorization for establishing the trade embargo; subsequent laws that required enforcement of the embargo; and other restrictive statutes that prohibit transactions between U.S.-owned or controlled firms and Cuba, and limitations on direct shipping between U.S. and Cuban ports.

Cuba relies on agricultural imports to feed the 11 million people who live there and the approximately 4 million tourists who visited in 2019 prior to the pandemic.  The U.S. International Trade Commission found that if restrictions on trade with Cuba had been lifted, exports like wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans could increase by 166 percent within five years to a total of about $800 million.

Source

The Cuban Revolutionary Government denounces the more than 60 years of the economic, commercial and financial blockade on Cuba - formally imposed by the U.S. on February 3, 1962

Sixty years ago today, a Presidential Proclamation formalized the criminal U.S. blockade against Cuba

....It is the practical expression of the Monroe Doctrine in the 21st century, which views Latin America and the Caribbean from the perspective of an owner, whether it be the "back or front yard."

Revolutionary Government Statement

Author: Granma | internet@granma.cu

february 3, 2022 10:02:47

The Revolutionary Government denounces the more than 60 years of the economic, commercial and financial blockade formally imposed by the U.S. on February 3, 1962. On this date, then President John F. Kennedy issued Proclamation 3447, which decreed a total "embargo" on trade with our country under section 620 (a) of the Foreign Assistance Act, thus formalizing the aggressive, unilateral economic actions taken against Cuba since the Revolution triumphed.

Since then, the policy of encirclement and economic asphyxiation has been consolidated as the central axis of a strategy meant to restrict the legitimate right of Cubans to defend our sovereignty and forge an emancipatory project, without imperialist domination.

The main justification used by the U.S. at the time, to support implementation of the measure, was Cuba's relationship with socialist countries, which allegedly violated "the principles of the inter-American system" and threatened U.S. and hemispheric security. Over time, the pretexts have varied, but the intent remains the same.

The most precise definition of the true objectives of U.S. policy toward Cuba policy had been stated previously, in a memorandum from Under Secretary of State Lester D. Mallory, dated April 6, 1960, which recommended fomenting, "disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship… denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government."

The blockade has evolved to become the most complex, prolonged and inhumane act of economic warfare committed against any nation. Its impact has limited the possibilities of economic development, being designed to prevent trade relations with third countries, hinder banking and financial operations as much as possible, limit foreign investment and cut off all sources of income.

It is an essentially extraterritorial policy, in violation of international law, which seeks, through pressure, coercion and punitive measures, to isolate Cuba and punish those who establish any economic, commercial and financial relations with the country. It is the practical expression of the Monroe Doctrine in the 21st century, which views Latin America and the Caribbean from the perspective of an owner, whether it be the "back or front yard."

The blockade has never had the slightest trace of legitimacy or moral justification.  It constitutes a massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of all Cubans. It qualifies as an act of genocide under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

To justify the blockade, the U.S. government feels obliged to use lies and hide its criminal impact, promoting and financing a campaign intended to sell the idea that the effects of the blockade are not real, that they do not really harm the Cuban economy, that they are not a significant problem for our development or economic stability. This is a falsehood that is disseminated by powerful media at the service of imperialism and digital networks designed to influence the thinking of many, even that of some compatriots.

The accumulated damages over these six decades have surpassed 144,413,400,000 dollars at current prices.

Since 2019, coercive economic measures have become qualitatively more aggressive. Unconventional warfare methods are being utilized, inappropriate in peacetime, in an effort to deprive Cuba of fuel supplies.

In the context of the COVID-19 battle, the tightening of the blockade has reached unimaginable limits of cruelty, obstructing solidarity donations, attempting to hinder the development of Cuban vaccines and limit access to medicines and basic supplies. 

During the pandemic, and throughout these 60 years, the blockade has had an incalculable human cost and several generations have felt it in the flesh.

The strengths of the Cuban socialist system and the unity of our people have made this possible, in spite of the blockade, preventing the economic and social collapse it seeks, achieving outstanding human development, according to indices recognized by the United Nations, ensuring unquestionable progress in social justice and conducting a gradual transformation of our economic and productive structures in search of sustainable development. Given this reality, one might ask how many small, underdeveloped economies could have survived aggression of such proportions.

This policy of economic encirclement has met with practically unanimous and universal rejection. In addition to overwhelming support for the resolution passed every year by the United Nations General Assembly, individuals, organizations and institutions around the world make constant demands and organize actions to condemn the blockade, including within the United States itself.

Since 1959, thirteen Presidents have occupied the White House. In all cases, with some subtle differences, the permanent commitment has been maintained to provoke the economic collapse and the unsustainability of our revolutionary project, through the strict imposition of the blockade. It would seem that 60 years have not been enough for its promoters to understand that the objectives have not, and will not be attained.

The Revolutionary Government, on behalf of the Cuban people, emphatically and energetically demands, once again, the lifting of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the U.S. Our condemnation will remain firm and invariable, until this inhuman, illegal policy is ended, in its entirety.

Havana, February 3, 2022

Source

Lifting the Cuban embargo

By Ramesh Sujanani, Jamaica Gleaner Contributor

 

 

 

Sometime ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly shared the view that the United States' embargo against Cuba helps the Castros, noting, "It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo, and do not want to see normalisation with the United States."

Clinton said in the same interview that "we're open to changing with them," though the US government maintains its strong position against lifting the embargo.

The fact is that Cuban-Americans, most of whom reside in Miami, had their property and other assets confiscated by Fidel Castro, worth almost US$6 billion. Should the embargo be lifted, these persons will require compensation for personal assets seized. Who will make good that claim by the Cuban migrants? Many are protesting Castro's reasons for becoming the dictator, and are not satisfied Castro will honour his obligations. These Cuban-Americans have supported Obama's Florida campaign, and it seems that as long as it takes to recover their assets, they will continue to support him.

There are no other considerations, as the effect of battle (Bay of Pigs), and the Cuban Missile Crisis, seemed to have been relinquished. The Cato Institute in the USA remarked: "The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more liberated. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports."

I might add that it has also affected Jamaica's, and CARICOM's, trade possibilities with Cuba which may have been fruitful. As it is at this time, we employ Cuban doctors and other medical assistants to improve our skills in medicine, and we have sent patients into Cuba who require ophthalmic operations; it seems their availability of this discipline is greater than ours.

The embargo does place the people in poverty, but as Mrs Clinton said, it indicates that the State prefers to have a docile and ignorant population.

I have heard from various Jamaicans who seem to feel various past governments in Jamaica seem to have a similar intent, though I cannot understand why this would occur in this country. It seems a well-respected member of the Church, Pope John Paul II, had that on his mind about Cuba.

Some religious leaders oppose the embargo for a variety of reasons, including the humanitarian and economic hardships the embargo imposes on Cubans. Pope John Paul II called for an end to the embargo during his 1979 pastoral visit to Mexico. However, during his January 1998 visit to Cuba, Pope John Paul II delivered his most powerful attack against President Fidel Castro's government, urging the Roman Catholic Church to take "courageous and prophetic stands in the face of the corruption of political or economic power" and to promote human rights within Cuba.

While also opposing the embargo, the general secretary of the National Council of Churches stated, "We did not understand the depth of the suffering of Christians under communism, and we failed to really cry out under the communist oppression." The US bishops called for an end to the embargo after Pope Benedict's visit this year. Cuba has also dubbed as 'theft' the use of frozen Cuban assets to pay for lawsuits filed in the US against the Republic of Cuba.

On Thursday, June 10, 2010, seventy-four of Cuba's dissidents signed a letter to the US Congress in support of a bill that would lift the travel ban for Americans wishing to visit Cuba. The letter supports a bill introduced on February 23 by Representative Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat, that would bar the president from prohibiting travel to Cuba or blocking transactions required to make such trips. It also would bar the White House from stopping direct transfers between US and Cuban banks.

The signers stated: "We share the opinion that the isolation of the people of Cuba benefits the most inflexible interests of its government, while any opening serves to inform and empower the Cuban people and helps to further strengthen civil society."

At this time, Americans with family in Cuba are allowed to travel and visit them; they are also allowed to bring in foodstuffs and other necessities.

Ramesh Sujanani is a businessman. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and rsujanani78@gmail.com.

Jamaica Gleaner

November 24, 2012

President Obama's words versus his performance on Cuba

By Sophia Weeks, COHA Research Associate:

President Obama has not taken any decisive steps to veer away from Washington’s benighted, near half-century trade embargo against Cuba. By refusing to take advantage of the opportunity to reject a longstanding and morally-bankrupt policy, which has achieved very few successes and which has been based on hypocrisy, double standards, and inconsistencies, President Obama has turned his back on the possibility of a new beginning for US policy towards Latin America based on constructive engagement. At this point, Obama is sadly not the US president bringing “change” to the hemisphere as millions of North and South Americans had hoped. Rather, he has failed to fulfill his own foreign policy objective of reaching out to Washington’s unforgiving foes like the Castro brothers. The courage and political wisdom necessary to call for the termination of the embargo and new beginnings has proven devoid of stamina, replaced by a timorous approach composed of weak probes and minimal actions. It appears that the President does not wear the face of change for those who had reason to hope it would come about.

Remittances and Travel to Cuba

So far Obama has removed restrictions on remittances and travel of Cuban Americans to Cuba, but not for all Americans. In doing so he unfortunately has created two distinct classes of citizens each with different rights, a situation any democratic country would be wise to repudiate. It is disappointing that while Obama has the discretionary right to allow anyone to travel to Cuba, he has chosen not to utilize it. The new administration’s policies on Cuba thus far have merely mirrored the Clinton administration’s centrist approach. In effect, in regards to Cuba, we are witnessing something akin to President Bush’s or Clinton’s third term in office.

Obama has only revoked some of the more parochial aspects of Bush’s policy and has slightly softened Clinton’s draconic hard line on Cuba. Although Obama stated during his presidential campaign, “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad,’” what new freedoms has he brought? The Cuban and American people are still kept a world apart, without any constructive steps that suggest a meaningful change lies ahead. In other words, Washington’s uninspired and lackluster policies toward Havana may please an anti-Castro militant, but not someone seasoned in the ways of statesmanship.

Cuban Embargo

Today, regarding Cuba, and more generally Latin America, we see unnerving similarities between the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Instead of following through on Obama’s promises that “After eight years of the failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future,” the same deceptive excuses and cosmetic domestic changes have characterized his policy on Cuba. While Obama already has many controversial issues on his plate and it is clear that his actions reflect a desire to protect and preserve his presidency, this cannot be used to excuse what up to this point is an inept policy. His subsequent decision to continue the embargo confirms his failure to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained and elaborated. COHA Director Larry Birns has referred to Secretary of State Clinton’s recent decisions regarding Cuba as illustrating an inevitable move towards a centrist approach to Caribbean issues, much like those assumed in the Clinton years. In Obama’s campaign, according to Birns, “his progressive and left-leaning rhetoric belied his inability to protect and implement meaningful change. Even if he wanted to be the progenitor of a new generation of a bold new policy aimed at Cuba, he probably lacks the votes to implement what he has promised, without a bruising battle.”

Of course Obama has every right to define and protect his Presidential legacy as he sees fit, but not at the cost of forfeiting the extraordinary opportunity he has to dictate a new direction in hemispheric policy. Americans, as well as Cuban Americans, were promised a review of Latin American foreign policy, and that is what they expected. Since coming to office, it was not only Americans that were let down: average Cubans also are disappointed with the lack of productive policy decisions. Just a few days ago, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez echoed this sentiment: “Obama was elected on a platform of ‘change’ but with respect to the economic blockade against Cuba, there has been no change.”

Cuba: the Terrorist

Obama’s vocabulary of change is symbolically undermined by his lack of action regarding the embargo. It was announced on September 14 that he would extend the economic sanctions against Cuba under the Trading with the Enemy Act for another year. Established in 1917, the measure was utilized by the Kennedy administration to implement the trade embargo on Cuba in 1962. In 1996 the Helms-Burton Act was passed, codifying the various disparate laws affecting the embargo into a single bill. President Clinton saw to it that under Helms-Burton, the embargo could be lifted, but only with the approval of the U.S. Congress, and only once Cuba has begun an authentic transition to democratic political institutions. Thus, even if Obama decided against renewing the extension of Trading with the Enemy Act, the embargo would still hold unless revoked by Congress. However, such an act would have represented a symbolic outreach to Havana and the Cuban people.

There are Terrorists and “Terrorists”

One underlying problem that continues to hinder an effective dialogue with the Cuban government is that Havana remains on the State Department’s annual list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Cuba has been on the blacklist since March 1982, when it was added due to its close relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Castro has long since backed away from his government’s policy of supporting what Washington would classify as terrorist organizations. The fact that Cuba remains on the list speaks to the hypocrisy of such a designation, since so many far more brutal nations are allowed to freely relate with the White House.

The reprehensible actions of the Cuban government over the past few decades pale in comparison to the Washington’s dedication over the past 50 years to violent and often clandestine terrorist operations inside Cuba. North Korea and Libya are examples of countries that continue to align themselves with such threats, but recently, purely on the grounds of expedience on Washington’s behalf, have had their names removed from the list. Yet Cuba remains, alongside countries like Iran and Syria, when Washington has not been able to make anything like a respectable case to justify this.

It is apparent that the removal of the name of North Korea was politically motivated, as there is plenty of evidence pointing to recent terrorist activities occurring in the country. What is absurd is that Cuba is still labeled an “enemy” of the US, despite Obama’s inspirational words of evidence of change taking place in the country. The removal of Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terror, as well as ending the 47-year embargo, would have been consistent with Obama’s vow of goodwill to governments throughout Latin America, and usher in a new era of US-Cuba relations. Then there is the fact that Washington doesn’t have a scintilla of evidence to back up its terrorism charge.

Cuba: By Mail

On September 17, US and Cuban officials began discussing the possibility of restoring direct mail service between Cuba and the United States. For the Obama administration, this is another small but welcome initiative in the right direction. Direct mail between the US and Cuba has been suspended since 1963. Currently, even a simple first-class letter requires routing through a third country, a convoluted process that can take months to complete. Although resuming direct mail is an important step in establishing a positive relationship, it should be understood that restoring service is a mere minor gesture of goodwill, if the far greater effects of the embargo insupportably remain in place. Cuban officials have expressed their belief that the embargo has contributed to the widespread deterioration of postal buildings and a weakening of the infrastructure of the entire postal system, but this should not deter Washington from proceeding with these negotiations. The disparities should be emphasized however, between the steps Obama has indicated he is willing to take within the larger picture of US-Cuban relations, which remain under a buffer of unhelpful special conditions which are a hindrance to any opening up of the political process.

A further outcome of the two-country dialogue on direct mail service is Cuba’s reasonable insistence that the restoration of commercial flights accompany the new mailing system. Although this last request remains a point of contention, Josefina Vidal Ferreiro, director of the Foreign Ministry’s North American Department, said that overall, “We are satisfied with developments in this first meeting,” and called the talks “wide-ranging and useful.” In this respect, President Obama has started in a purposive direction; he now must show that he does indeed have “good intentions” towards Cuba by making these dialogues a reality.

A Look Ahead

On September 28, the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization will once again condemn Washington’s embargo on Cuba. This will be the 18th consecutive year that Cuban officials produce a report requesting relief from the economic restrictions forced upon them by the US. There is little question that once again the UN will vote to denounce it. The 2009 report, attributing $236 billion (using today’s dollar value) in damages over the past five decades to the embargo, outlines damages to Cuba’s education, health, agriculture and transportation, among other sectors.

While Obama certainly has too much on his plate internationally and domestically for any immediate dramatic moves toward Cuba, his decision to extend the Trading With the Enemy Act against Cuba for another year was a profound disappointment. Cuban officials accept the fact that, due to the Helms-Burton Act, Obama cannot repeal the embargo alone, but the baby steps of allowing family travel and the exchange of remittances is not enough of an equivalence when the costly and lethal effect of the embargo and years of covert operations against the Castro regime are taken into account. US policy today does not emphasize “the dismantling of the blockade,” as the public was led to believe it would, but is focused only on providing a wisp of recompense for years of injustice. The result of the UN meeting on September 28 will chastise the US for its embargo on Cuba, but it is up to Obama to put its words into action by aligning with Cuban authorities and together moving towards a future of mutual respect and cooperation. If Obama is to remain a worldwide emblem of hope and change, he will have to undertake the some political risk that is necessary to break with an old paralytic habit, by ushering in a new generation of Cuban-US relations.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org


caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International