
Editor’s
Note: Pan Deng is an adjunct fellow at the Charhar Institute and executive
director of the Latin America and Caribbean Region Law Center of China
University of Political Science and Law. This article was published both in English and Spanish by some
other media, including Cubadebate, Prensa Latina, Cubasi, Radio Rebelde, Radio
Cubana, International Shia News Agency (Iran) and Cambo (Bolivia).
U.S.
President Donald Trump has broken another record. Last month, he decided to
enforce a controversial provision of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act against Cuba.
The section has been suspended by every president since Bill Clinton. Now the
final fig leaf is gone.
Glossy
justification and typical hypocrisy
In
February 1996, the Cuban air force shot down two planes owned by the
anti-Castro regime from the United States. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms and
Representative Dan Burton immediately passed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act, which was approved by Congress and signed into effect by then
president of the United States Bill Clinton, citing "attacks on civilian
personnel on board" and "worrying human rights situation."
The
bill was given a glossy justification when it was deliberated. Its defenders
believed that in the past countries faced with unexpected political and
security incidents usually adopted political condemnation supplemented by
diplomatic mediation. With this approach, if one side adopted a slightly
inappropriate method, it could easily lead to all-round confrontation and even
war. This legislation pioneered the application of provisions under the
economic framework in political events, thus steering conflicts to areas easier
to control.
Cuban
Foreign Minister Bruno Eduardo Rodriguez Parrilla speaks at United Nations
General Assembly 30th plenary meeting on the necessity of ending the economic,
commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America
against Cuba at the UN headquarters in New York, November 01, 2018. /VCG Photo
It's
the most typical hypocrisy at play. Obviously, the U.S. intended to ramp up
economic pressure on the rivals to achieve something that used to be possible
only through the exchange of political interests or hand-to-hand combat in the
battlefield, so as to reduce the cost of sanctions, yet still boast of being a
beacon of freedom, justice and democracy. Unfortunately, this time the
lawmakers' practice was so clumsy that most people today have forgotten the
formal name of the law and directly used the name of its initiator, the
Helms-Burton Act, in criticizing it.
The
United States accused Cuba of violating international law by shooting down
American planes back then. However, the U.S. connivance of Cuban exile groups
to carry out military provocations itself violates the more fundamental general
principle of international law, namely "respect for sovereignty." The
United States has imposed an economic embargo on Cuba since the 1960s, which is
the most direct reason for the decline in the medical conditions and
nutritional status of the Cuban people. According to Helms' logic, it seems
that Cuba should have the right to retaliate on the grounds of human rights.
Reincarnation
of 'extraterritoriality'
Besides,
"human rights" have never been defined as a political tool for a
country to achieve its own goals. According to the international conventions on
human rights, only certain international organizations have the right to
determine whether a government has violated human rights. Any country, including
the United States, has no right to retaliate unilaterally on the ground that
Cuba violates human rights.
The
worries about the international order caused by this act are also reflected on
the economic front. Now that a country's investment and trade have been
extended abroad, the jurisdiction of its economic rules should also be extended
overseas. Therefore, there is nothing wrong about the extraterritorial
application of its economic law. But the Helms have gone too far this time.
This
provision allows for U.S. companies and individuals to sue, in a U.S. court,
any entities that "trafficked" in, or profited from the use of,
confiscated U.S. property, regardless of the nationality of the defendant.
This
kind of provision clearly marks a stretch of the authority of a country's
judiciary. The law enables U.S. to put restrictions on any third country
besides its adversary based on its own political will. In theory, it can
restrict the freedom of economic activities of nationals and legal persons of every
country in the world and directly damage the sovereignty of all other
countries. Creating a national law to bind the entire international community
smacks of reincarnation and upgrade of the "extraterritoriality" in
the colonial era. It has long departed from the original intention of
"retaliating against Cuba."
What
is even more ironic is that the World Trade Organization (WTO) had just been
established one year before the enactment of this bill. In order to protect
world trade and investment activities, the WTO regards free trade as the most
fundamental principle-which is exactly what Helms' motherland has been
vigorously upholding and defending. The "principle of free trade"
precisely requires that all obstacles, including laws, regulations, policies and
measures, that hinder and prevent the development and conduct of international
trade be restricted and removed.

The
director of the North America Department of Cuba's Foreign Ministry, Cuban
Josefina Vidal (2-R), and members of her delegation participate in the first
day of closed-door talks between Cuba and the United State, at the Convention
Palace in Havana, January 21, 2015. /VCG Photo
History
repeats itself
The
Helms-Burton Act shocked all countries. The United States was the major trading
partner of most American countries. The bill originally intended to force them
to choose whether to give up doing business with Cuba or to retain the
opportunity to do business in the United States.
However,
to the surprise of the United States, many countries announced that they would
take swift and serious retaliatory measures. The EU sued to the WTO over the
case. It is really difficult for the United States to justify the law and it
faced the risk of losing the lawsuit.
Clinton
had to walk a tightrope between "maintaining hegemony" and
"demonstrating morality" and decided to postpone the implementation
of Chapter III of the bill for six months. Moreover, when every six-month
period expired, successive presidents would postpone it for another six months.
Mr. Trump did not decide to activate it until April this year. The world public
opinion once again was in an uproar just like what happened before. Some
countries again place their hopes on the WTO and try to use litigation to put a
stop on it.
The
discussion on the legitimacy of the Helms-Burton Act is not worthy of the time
and energy of WTO justices, as Clinton and Obama, who were lawyers, would not
shelf the act if they could find any justification.
The
problem is that today's U.S. president does not need to be coy and indecisive
in choosing between "maintaining hegemony" and "demonstrating
morality" as his predecessors did.
Copy Editor/Kang Sijun
Editor/Kang Sijun
Source: CGTN, 2019-05-11
Original Link: https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514d78416a4e34457a6333566d54/index.html