It is bound by the US law on trading with Cuba (and hence cancelled a booking from a Cuban delegation),
BUT
This is in breach of Norway’s Discrimination Laws, and Hilton faces charges in Norway under this legislation.
What is the right way for the Hotel Chain to act?
This of course goes to the heart of US claims and intentions in internationalizing its laws and seeking to bind other governments, so, a supplementary question:
How far should a single country push the boundaries of its law making, and how is this squared when such laws conflict with other countries’ laws?
I should point out that the incident happened in January, so it looks like Hilton has managed to weather this storm.
As to your question, I think Hilton is full of crap ( I can say crap here, can’t I?). There are any number of US based companies whose products you can find in Cuba without any problem, Coca Cola for instance. Sure, the Coke you find in Cuba is bottled in Mexico, and I guess there’s some sort of company structure that allows for this, so what? If Coke can do it so can Hilton.
My own guess is that Hilton precipitated this incident, because tourism is Cuba’s number one industry, and companies like Hilton are being kept out of it by the embargo. European companies like Sol Melia are the big players in Cuba, and Hilton wants a piece of that pie again. I say again because Hilton was once the big player in Cuba, today’s Hotel Nacional in Havana was once called the Havana Hilton.
By pulling stunts like this, and as I recall Marriott did the same thing in Mexico last year, these hotel chains seem to be trying to create a lobbying platform for lifting the embargo.
The hotel involved is in Oslo. Hilton Norway has to follow local laws, same as I have to follow US law when I am in the US, Swiss law when I’m in Switzerland…
Is there any part of that concept that you have problems understanding? I’d be perfectly happy to work in the US under Spanish labor law. 20 days paid vacation and unlimited sick days, yoohoo! With American salary!
Anti-discrimination laws refer to discrimination of people, not of goods. Are you saying a person and a side of beef are the same?
You may address this question as well: If a nation wishes because of reasons related to peace, security, or human rights to economically boycott another nation, should any other country retaliate against businesses that follow the first nation’s laws?
Trade ultimately affects the welfare of people. Discrimination is discrimination.
Hilton is not obliged to do business in Norway. Given that it is a US-based corporation, it should have looked at Norwegian law to discover whether it had anything inconsistent with the US laws that it must obey, and if it found irreconcilable conflicts, it should have kept out of Norway.
Incidentally, Australia also has laws that forbid discrimination on grounds of national origin, so perhaps Hilton could find itself in conflict with Australian laws. However, there aren’t that many visits by Cubans to Australia, so in practice it might not be a problem.