Right now, most Cubans have little or no access to fresh water and electricity due to the oil embargo the US has imposed on the island. Hospitals struggle to remain open so they can handle the sick and cases of malnourishment. The Cuban people that are being punished can’t change their government and can only hope that bombs start to drop soon. How is this not a crime against humanity?
It’s hard to keep up with his atrocities. What’s with this one. Why is he blocking oil?
He’s trying to pressure Cuba into regime change so he can put another feather in his cap, like what he did in Venezuela. Russia and Mexico have provided oil to Cuba during the embargo, but it’s not enough to keep Cuba running, and the current Cuban regime doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Perhaps Trump doesn’t want to invade Cuba and piss off the thousands of Cuban refugees in Florida.
You’ve kind of said it yourself. Russia and Mexico provided oil during this time. There is no blockade. What exactly is the US doing that might be a war crime?
The oil Cuba was able to smuggle in from Mexico and Russia didn’t last that long, and besides them, nobody else has gotten any oil through the US blockade. The Cuban government announced yesterday that they are officially out of oil and there was a country-wide blackout as a result. It takes oil to make electricity, and it takes electricity to get water to where people live. This isn’t an issue of inconvenience, it’s about survival for the average Cuban. I would think that slowly killing an entire country’s population might be considered a crime against humanity, but I’m clearly wrong in this case.
Per the commonly used narrow, legal definitions, it probably isn’t a War Crime.
It absolutely is a measure being taken with gross disregard to the disproportionate suffering of the general population. Which, sadly, is a frequent happening in our modern, militaristic world.
Realpolitik means that none of our international laws have any teeth in them, especially if you’re on the security council or have a close ally who is.
That said, if someone wanted to describe it imprecisely as a War Crime, I wouldn’t [ Shock Warning! ] be particularly pedantic about it.
Next you’ll be saying that bombing Iraqi schools is wrong…
Iranian ones, too.
This one has its own Wikipedia page.
The entire island is under periodic blackouts
Cuba is run poorly. even food is imported- and their electrical grid is a joke. Communism, under a dictator- simply doesnt work.
The recent Oil embargo is NOT causing the blackouts. The embargo seems to be making them even worse however-
A series of interruptions to the nationwide electrical service of Cuba occurred during the months of February, March, October and December 2024. The blackouts began in February 2024 with power outages that affected nearly half of the country. In March, further blackouts caused protests. On 5–6 October, a third of the country experienced outages.[5] From 18 to 22 October 2024, a total nationwide blackout occurred due to the failure of the Antonio Guiteras Power Plant. During the October shutdowns, the Cuban government announced energy-saving measures.[6][9] Blackouts continued in the latter half of 2025 from mechanical failures, weather, and continuing fuel and spare part shortages.[10][11]
And it is not really a “Blockade” - oil carrying ships are not being stopped by US Naval forces.
Labels matter, but they do not answer legal questions. The U.S. campaign against Cuba is not a law of naval warfare blockade. It is a coercive oil-denial campaign (embargo) conducted through domestic sanctions authorities, tariff threats, diplomatic pressure, and the spillover effects of related maritime enforcement against other targets of sanctions. That distinction keeps the analysis outside the LoNW blockade rules and places it under the U.N. Charter, the law of the sea, the prohibition on intervention, and the law of State responsibility.
On present facts, the embargo does not amount to a use of force, although if the humanitarian situation in Cuba worsens, a stronger case can be made that it does. However, official threats concerning Cuba can reasonably be characterized as violating the prohibition on the threat of the use of force. Even more clearly, the effort to force regime change by depriving Cuba of the fuel necessary to sustain daily life violates the prohibition on intervention into the internal affairs of another State.
None of this denies that the United States may pursue legitimate security and human rights objectives regarding Cuba. It may criticize, sanction, restrict trade, and use diplomacy to oppose conduct it regards as threatening or unlawful. But international law limits the means by which even legitimate objectives may be pursued. A campaign that seeks to force a turnover in government by cutting off an island State’s essential fuel supply threatens — and, in important respects, crosses over — those boundaries.
So according to that source, the “blockade” is not a violation of international law.
They certainly could- maybe. How do you think Castro came into power in the first place? A revolution by the People.
The annoying thing (and I don’t approve it really) is that China has showed that it does work (… after getting it wrong for decades, but still..).
The point here is that, speaking as supporter of popular movements, the China example of finally using market economy solutions (with strings attached) starting around 1978, should had been the moment when Cuban leaders should had started to reform too. So, to me, a big chunk of the responsibility falls to the current Cuban rulers for the failures now.
Sure, a lot of the problems are coming from what the current administration in the US is doing to Cuba, but a lot of the failures are coming as a result of Cuba not doing reforms early on.
China is a weird combo of Capitalism and Communism. The State allows their citizens to get rich.
Yeah, Cuba is stuck in the 1970s and not in a good way. Looks like most of the problems are of their own making, but the current administration is making stuff even worse.
This is the real answer; it’s not a “crime against humanity” because America is the nation doing it. If somehow Cuba did the same against America, that would be a “crime agaisnt humanity”. It’s who you are, not what you do.
Well, my cite disagrees.
^This.
I don’t think the premise meets the definition of a crime against humanity. In theory, it could be possible. The intent, of why you’re doing it, could be the difference.
I don’t know the specifics, so the premise I’m assuming, is USA put an oil embargo on Cuba and that oil embargo is causing civilians to suffer. The reason for the oil embargo, as you state in post 3, is to pressure Cuba into a regime change. Based off just that, I’d say it’s not a crime against humanity (against a specific individual, say Trump or Rubio).
The underlying conduct (oil embargo) is not illegal. It’s just an economic sanction. The underlying conduct in a crime against humanity must be illegal (“inhumane”). I don’t think an oil embargo for the purpose of regime change is inhumane even if it does lead to civilian suffering. If the purpose was to kill civilians, then I’d reconsider. Blocking other aid, and length of time the blockade is in effect and seeing the severity of terrible effect, would be other things to consider as that starts to feel more inhumane.
Here’s how crime against humanity is generally defined (oil embargo could be k):
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
The key point is the oil embargo itself has to be the inhumane act.
And it isnt really a classic Embargo. US Navy ships are not blocking ships from coming in. The 'embargo" is strictly Economic and political pressure.
They might have had an easier go of it if we didn’t have a comprehensive trade embargo and sanctions against Cuba for more than 60 years.
It is interesting- on one hand, Cuba claimed that the embargo and sanctions werent doing anything, then OTOH, claiming they are hurting the People.
But there was a gap in the embargo, and still Cuba didnt get its act together. They Communist regime didnt fix the grid, didnt update and modernize their agriculture (there is a lot of arable land, Cuba could easily grow all the food it needs) and so forth.
No- just as in Europe, a Communist Dictatorship is terrible for the people, there are always shortages of nearly everything- because Communism simply doesnt work.
The gap lasted two years - that’s a tall order. I’m not pro-communist by any means, but let’s not pretend that the US didn’t have a lot to do with Cuba’s problems over the past 6 decades. China and Vietnam are both communist politically but with a strongly market-driven economy which allows them to prosper. Cuba never really got that chance. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they did experiment with market-oriented policies. Without the U.S. embargo, Cuba might have evolved similarly to China or Vietnam. We’ll never know, since it’s hard to do so when your next door neighbor is the world’s largest economy and actively working against you.
East Germany, Poland, Hungary etc disagree. Without any embargoes from the US, their economies were still crap, and the people suffered.
And during the embargo
Stuff still came in- from the USSR for example- but still the basic issues were not fixed- and the embargo was lifted for more than two years-
In response to pressure from some American farmers and agribusiness, the embargo was relaxed by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which was passed by Congress in October 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The relaxation allowed the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. Although Cuba initially declined to engage in such trade (having even refused U.S. food aid in the past, seeing it as a half-measure serving U.S. interests),[49] the Cuban government began to allow the purchase of food from the U.S. as a result of Hurricane Michelle in November 2001.[50] In some tourist spots across the island, American brands such as Coca-Cola can be purchased. Ford tankers refuel planes in airports and some computers use Microsoft software.[51] The origin of the financing behind such goods is not always clear. The goods often come from third parties based in countries outside the U.S., even if the product being dealt originally has U.S. shareholders or investors.[52]
Cuban thaw
And despite the below, food is still scarce-
Since the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act was e
nacted in 2000, the trade of food and medicine goods is excluded from the embargo.
Yes, the Embargo (and note the new Embargo really isnt a real Embargo) has had an effect on Cuba. But without it, their economy would still be crap. One reason is that they have little to export anyway, except cigars.