The socioeconomic oppression called sanctions, or economic blockades, are a form of response, coming from imperialist nations that want to perpetuate their form of domination to countries that seek more autonomy and social and political liberation. Nations that fight for their freedom show their former metropolises that they manage to survive and form a society based on their present and historical material environment; but, above all, these nations demonstrate that they can form autonomous partnerships with several sovereign nations, whether or not they are allies of their countries that once controlled them, and flow their economic and social development. As a response to these forms of autonomy, which occurred in droves in the short 20th century and which are reflected in this new century, the unilateralism of sanctions is used, in addition to other measures of direct interference, such as direct coups d’état, or indirect, such as the "color revolutions". However, oppression has an ideological and political genesis that, erroneously, supposedly legitimates the aggressions and actions of these nations: their ethnocentric ideals of superiority and guardians of order. To this end, see the example of the USA on the Latin American continent.

This evil was born of the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine, established by US President James Monroe in 1823, was based on the assumption that Europe would not interfere in Latin American countries. European nations met to discuss the course of Europe and to redraw the map of the Old Continent, undoing the French expansion led by Napoleon Bonaparte years earlier. In political matters, Europe sought to stop the process of independence initiated by its former colonies in America. In this way, the doctrine had the force of North American regional imposition and its potential opposition to the European "old regime". On the other hand, the doctrine legitimized the US to push, through ideology, that it would be the "Sheriff" of the continent and protect its neighbors against whom they considered "villains" - today, we can evaluate these attitudes as bad jokes.

With legitimation, the North Americans made Latin America their "backyard" and imposed their societal expansionism on this group of countries. We take as examples the "march to the west" and interventions in sovereign nations. All these forms of maintaining order took a form legitimized by the North American egocentrism itself, where they would be the "liberating" nation, even taking deaths and oppressions to the battered nations.

The factor of global bi-polarization

After the allies, led by the Soviet Union (USSR), destroyed Nazi-fascism in Europe and Imperial Japan in Asia, there was a global division until the end of the 20th century. On one side were the USSR and its Eastern European allies, in addition to Cuba, along with some African, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries; on the other hand, in an ideologically, socially, politically, and economically totally opposed bloc was capitalism led by the USA and its western dogs.

Related News

Why the Israelis cannot win in Gaza or Yemen

Ansar Allah triumphant: US facing Red Sea defeat again

In addition to this conflict bringing social, political, and economic divisions, there was also a frantic search by both sides for zones of influence to contain their enemies, as in the case of the US with Latin America, generating numerous armed conflicts of serious geopolitical scope. This new environment led to the expansion of the Monroe Doctrine and established the Latin American continent as a North American socio-political laboratory, where they imposed political and economic regimes they trusted — regimes that were always authoritarian and anti-communist — in addition to financing torture and acts of state terrorism against opponents of these regimes.

The voices that suffered from Washington's authoritarianism and the imposition of an exclusionary economic system would rebel and would be examples for the rest of the continent, which had similar material environments. The natural and symbolic liberation happened, made by bearded people: "Y en eso llegó Fidel," as Carlos Puebla's song said.

The Cuban Revolution and the new look at Latin America

When the bearded men, led by Fidel Castro, arrived in Havana on January 1, 1959, the world, especially Latin America, was stunned by the tanks surrounded by people cheering the guerrillas coming from the mountains and the symbology behind the act. Furthermore, for the Cuban population, this represented a new construction of society, as opposed to the oppression of the Batista regime that was supported by the US, and the strengthening of social and political gains that would come with the new leaders.

After the triumph, Fidel and his companions imposed radical changes on the island, ranging from literacy that reached the entire population to an expansion of political citizenship; in short, what Cuba showed the world was that it is possible to make sudden social changes in a land that was controlled by oligarchs. The US, which once supported Batista's bloodthirsty dictatorship, looked at the Cuban revolution with great care and respect, but after the Cuban government decided to expropriate land and companies from US investors, the relationship would end completely. Consequently, soon after this attitude and in response, the US Government adopted a plan to overthrow the Cuban government, where they financed and trained Cuban mercenaries residing in Miami with the aim of overthrowing Castro and converting the population to the coup ideologies, but the population was on the government's side and the stalemate would result in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.

Cuba resisted and looked to the Soviet Union, a rival power to the USA, for refuge; Castro and his government base already showed a socialist tone in their governmental attitudes, even before they proclaimed themselves, in 1961, a socialist nation. Moreover, the Soviet help, which would come from installing missiles in the nation, would help to maintain the government. The missile crisis is a very important topic, but I want to focus on the representation of the Cuban revolution and its alternative to the US interest. The symbology of the revolution brought a new dream of liberation, causing countless nations to see Cuba as an example to be followed and to try their social liberation. The USA saw this fear of rebel ideas with great fear due to the nationalist character of the government, which showed itself to be opposed to their economic interests. That is why they tried to respond to these gestures in an angry and bloody way, with coups d’état and dirty wars. In addition, Cuba would undergo another oppression, today perhaps the greatest of all: the criminal blockade.

The blockade of Cuba

Cubans daily suffer from the economic and social consequences resulting from the blockade, and they have critical thinking about the nation that imposes this form of genocide. Health is one of the most affected points. The Cuban government is forced to obtain these materials and medicines in distant markets and, often, with the use of intermediaries, thus imposing higher prices in this sector. Despite the US government's destructive strategy, results in the social sphere were achieved, something comparable to those of developed countries. The health sector remained among the priorities of the revolution and was always demonstrated as something to be defended constantly throughout the revolutionary process. Both in the 1976 Constitution and in the current one, ensuring the state of well-being of the people has been represented as a duty of the State, free and general.

However, the US measures against Cuba are not only limited to medical services, but also to all areas of the nation's economy and technological sectors. Despite the difficulties and adversities that the Revolution faces, science and innovation are the engine of development and a lever to overcome all challenges, as our Commander Fidel Castro always preached. The right to life is embodied in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person." The blockade causes incalculable humanitarian damage. It constitutes a flagrant, massive, and systematic violation of human rights and qualifies as an act of genocide under subsections B and C of Article 2 of the 1948 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Here, we cannot but ask ourselves: is the US blockade against Cuba legal? Does the blockade or embargo, as it qualifies to remove its extraterritorial scope, not violate the provisions of International Humanitarian Law, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, and Article IV of the Geneva Conventions? A simple reading of this article will allow us to warn about the continuous violations that are based on the privilege of measures aimed at strangling the economy of the Antilles, with the objective of killing a whole people with disease sowing discontent in the civilian population and undermining support to the revolutionary process. If the United Nations General Assembly, for 27 consecutive years, almost unanimously supported the Cuban resolution against the blockade imposed by the United States, it is because, in the light of international law, this constitutes the greatest war crime carried out against a country in peacetime.

The reflections of the Cuban Revolution

Cuba stands as a symbol of hope and an example to other Latin American countries, especially those that defend themselves against colonialist actions. The Cuban rebels would influence guerrillas against bourgeois dictatorships in Latin America, such as the Brazilian guerrillas that fought in 964, to social revolts in the context of neoliberal capitalism, such as Chávez's Bolivarian. Furthermore, the persona of Commander Fidel Castro would be immortalized as a savior for the continent's poor and would be a reference to the progressive and Bolivarian governments that were born on the continent.

Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan president from 1999 to 2018, would absorb the radicals in the US and also build a democracy opposed to the oligarchic interests of its elites, in addition to making important social transformations in the life of their ideals and, consequently, reducing inequalities. Chávez and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, suffered from the imperialist beards, who will or will try to make imperialist alliances. Not only the Venezuelan Chavistas but also the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, the Bolivian indigenistas, the Brazilian left as a whole, among other examples, are constantly influenced by Cuba and its bearded men. A living revolution!