This is absurd logic.
It’s deliberately causing a humanitarian crisis. The fact that the humanitarian crisis is aimed at causing X is irrelevant for any non-wartime X (and even in war the principle is only relaxed so far).
To make the point more vividly: If I start a genocide, and then say “Well I would stop the killing as soon as the people start supporting Sheffield United” does that make it OK? My intent is just football support after all.
If one inteprets the phrase “crime against humanity” broadly rather than the restrictive interpretation of, say, the International Criminal Court (ICC), Trump’s very existence is a crime against humanity (cite: the “Compendium of Horrors” thread). Millions will die or have already died from Trump’s war on science and medicine and the literal war in Iran and the embargo against Cuba, just to cite a few examples from among thousands. And speaking of the ICC, Trump wants to disband it. He doesn’t seem to like courts very much.
It is making such a crisis worse, the crisis is already there, without the Blockade. Anyway, as I have said- there is no REAL blockade. The US Navy is not enforcing it. The president just made a request of other nations to not ship oil to Cuba. Of course being trump, there is an unsaid threat there of economic issues.
So, despite what the press is saying, there is no Blockade. It is a voluntary embargo, and any nation has the right to embargo their goods to another nation.
Well for one, it’s not an “unsaid” threat against other nations. Trump has threatened Mexico with tariffs and sanctions if they don’t comply.
For two, ships that port in Cuba are blocked from docking in the US for 6 months (this isn’t new), so it’s always been a bit more heavy handed than just a request.
For three, Trump used the Navy to arrest Maduro, which made blocking all oil shipments from Venezuela possible.
And for four, Naval aircraft have increased patrols around Cuba, probably to enforce the embargo. So again, the Navy is involved.
I suppose it’s not your conventional battleship blockade, but Trump has ratcheted things up considerably and used the US military to do it.
Have they shot at anyone? Yes it is voluntary under the usual trump threats- which may or may not be backed by the Courts- they have not been happy with those tariffs.
Have they boarded tankers and commandeered them?
You don’t need to shoot at unarmed vessels.
No, that’s the excuse. It’s been obvious for decades that it won’t do any such thing; the purpose of the embargo is to hurt them. For daring to defy the US, their rightful overlord.
It’s causing one. It’s likely a human rights violation, but that’s not enough to be a crime against humanity. While there is a predicate, the facts aren’t enough to be a crime against humanity as stated by OP.
We have much worse sanctions against other countries. Say Russia or North Korea. They are not crimes against humanity either because they are just sanctions. The conduct is sanctions and they can just absorb them better. If the conduct was to intentionally starve or dehydrate Cubans, then you could look to see if we are also preventing that kind of aid (food/water) from reaching Cuba. This is not my opinion. It’s what courts look to to find crimes against humanity.
Intent matters in almost all crimes. If I kill someone with my car, whether I intended it, or it was just an accident, matters as to whether I committed murder or not. You have to prove it was intentional for me to be a murderer, not just prove I killed someone.
Firstly, due to proximity and economic size, the US has the whip hand it comes to whether there’s a humanitarian crisis in Cuba. It’s not the same as sanctioning a far away country.
Secondly, as I said in times of war the kind of sanctions that can be imposed can be increased; Russia started a war and continues a war on its neighbour.
In terms of North Korea the justification is military too. However, since NK is not actually at war, and if international sanctions can be shown to be the primary cause of humanitarian crises in NK, then I would say it counts too.
Of course intent matters, but it doesn’t erase what you’re doing as a means to an end.
To follow your analogy, it’s more like running someone over to force a company to hire a new CEO. That’s murder, it doesn’t matter that the end goal is a change of leadership.
Cuba is going to be a clusterflop for any American government.
For starters, just about every other government on the planet has been trading with Cuba since forever. Canadians and Europeans have been vacationing there, in nice resorts, for years. Cuba still exports its cigars, sugar, and coffee to the rest of the world. The 1962 American embargo has done nothing except to exclude Cuba from enjoying Big Macs, Coca-Cola, and KFC. Plus preventing Americans from visiting. America conveniently disregards the fact that other countries freely trade with Cuba, their tourists go to Cuba and spend money, and it holds a seat at the United Nations.
But then, you have to ask: how are Cubans regarding an American takeover? That’s a tough call. I doubt very much that the average Cuban wants the US to take over. An American takeover wouldn’t necessarily liberate them, it would likely disappoint them. The descendants of Miami Cubans would reclaim their land, which they haven’t worked in two generations. Who should own that land, the guy who has worked it for the past 50 years, or the guy who has been out of the country and hasn’t touched it for 50 years? There are going to be clashes over that.
If Trump thinks, “The Cubans will welcome us as liberators,” he may be unpleasantly surprised. The Iraqis did not welcome the Americans as liberators in 2003, neither do the Iranians now. I see no reason why the Cubans would welcome an American takeover.
Too late to edit: “I see no reason why the Cubans would welcome an American takeover. I’m sure that they would like to carve their own destiny, which may not be in line with what America wants.”
The Cubans did liberate themselves, in the 1950s. If America wants a positive relationship with Cuba, there are cultural and trade agreements to be had. Asking what Cubans think about “an American takeover” is like asking what Iranians or Vietnamese think about it.
As a rule, no one wants to be taken over and exploited by the Empire, and that goes beyond even fucked-up internal politics.
You’d be surprised.
We even have a word for such people in Argentina “Cipayos”: sepoys.
You’re confusing intent with motive. You’re analogy presumes murder (intentional killing for the motive of a new CEO). Forget the motive. How is an oil embargo an intentional killing. It’s not in Russia or North Korea, but it is in Cuba? How can that be? Is every economic decision that predictably results in loss of life murder?
As I mentioned earlier, it could be. If the intent/purpose of the oil embargo is to deprive Cuban citizens of food/water/shelter, and it’s clear that only oil can replace food/water/shelter, and we’re stopping food/water/shelter from getting to Cuba, and those factors were the actual cause of their death, then you’ve got a case for murder. That situation, if proven, would have an intent to kill that did actually cause the death. But that’s almost an impossible case. And this is just proving murder, not a crime against humanity which requires more. From what was laid out by OP, that’s not what was claimed or appears to be happening. Just a humanitarian crisis caused by an oil embargo (which apparently is not actually an oil embargo but a threat to tariff other countries for selling oil to Cuba which makes this even more tenous). This kind of behavior has never been charged as a crime against humanity before.
This next part is for everyone. Here’s a brief history of Crimes Against Humanity for perspective:
It’s a recent crime. It’s an emergent crime. You need a lot of other crimes (murder, etc) targeted against a specific group of people, and the crime against humanity emerges. It started with the holocaust. Genocide, mass deportation, enslavement, extermination, murder, of jews and other specific people as part of a systematic and widespread attack on a civilian population by the Germans. Ethic cleansing/murder/etc in Yugoslavia in the 90s had crimes of humanity charged. Rwanda, Darfur. The criminal elements have changed over time, the most recent definition is linked in my post above. No war is required anymore but some level of fighting is usually associated for their to be an “attack”. An actual military blockade could be construed as an attack.
Most recently, Netanyahu of Israel is going to be the closest to the OP scenario and the one I could in theory stretch if the facts in OP supported it. He was charged with crimes against humanity (murder, persecution, other inhumane acts) for authorizing policies that intentionally deprived Gazans of essential necessities (food/water/etc) and for withholding humanitarian assistance during that same time (this makes the intent clear). This is just a charge, so just probable cause to believe it happened.
No, the fact there is an incompetent and corrupt Communist Dictatorship is the main cause of the humanitarian crisis. If the USA stopped all their actions vs Cuba, it still be in a crisis. However, yes, the current Administrations actions have made the crisis worse. Once that is understood, then we can intelligently discuss how bad the current Administration has made to the forever crisis.
I was not saying that this embargo is murder; I was explaining why your argument was flawed.
To use a less emotive example, it would be like if I were to steal money to get my kid through college. And your logic would imply that I wouldn’t be guilty of stealing because my objective is just getting my kid an education, even though my plan involved knowingly stealing.
And likewise here. The thing which links an oil embargo to regime change is a humanitarian crisis; especially given how suddenly the taps have been turned off and that it is on top of other embargos.
The fact that the end goal might be regime change (and, let’s face it: making a “Riviera of the Caribbean”) doesn’t acquit America from the proximate part of the plan.
The UN estimates that the embargo costs around 10% of GDP per year, with estimates on the cumulative cost starting at $100 billion and running as high as $2 trillion.
There’s also an internal coherence issue here. If they are so marginal, they obviously aren’t going to provoke regime change.
Sure, like i said
The Embargo had made thing worse- yes. But it is not the main cause of the problems in Cuba.
If any Western nation had a drop in GDP of 10%, it would be very bad, but the grid would stay up, and people wouldnt starve.
Things were pretty bad in 1959, which is why Castro was able to get the People behind him and force a regime change.
That doesn’t make sense – the proximate effect is on energy. This would be like bombing desalination plants in a country, and when the economic effect is calculated scoffing that “If we had a 15% hit to GDP we still wouldn’t have water shortages!”
So are the sanctions severe or not? You seem a bit all over the place. And why is that regime change evidence of something but the more than 60 years since that apparently can be ignored?
Not severe, but significant. (note I do not approve of them, we dont need to give that Communist regime any more excuse to blame their crap government on us).
Where did I say ignored? My point was the People of Cuba did achieve a regime change in 1959. I do not know if it could be done today.
But I just wanted to dispel the idea going around, by the OP at least- the the US has caused -
Yes, part of it is caused by the current administration. But MOST of it is caused by the corrupt and incompetent Communist Dictatorship.