2005-11-20,+Necessity+of+ending+the+embargo+by+USA+on+Cuba

= Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba =

INDEX
INTRODUCTION	2

·	Steps taken by the United States to intensify the blockade	3 ·	Pressure, threats and sanctions against individuals, institutions and NGOs	4 ·	Growing opposition to the blockade within the United States	5

1. EXTRATERRITORIAL ASPECTS OF BLOCKADE POLICY	6

1.1 increasing impact of the Blockade brought about by the United States’ growing involvement in the international economy	6

1.2 Civil sanctions imposed on various bodies (companies, banking institutions and NGOs) by the OFAC. 7

1.3 How the extraterritorial nature of the blockade affects foreign trade and investment. 8

1.3 Impact on the expansion of foreign investment and economic cooperation. 9

1.4 Section 211 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of the United States of America of 1999 and the new aggressions in the trademarks issue. 10

1.5. Examples of the impact of the extraterritorial application of the blockade	12

2. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT	14

2.1 Overview of the impact of the blockade on some of the most vital social sectors. 14

2.2. Impact on other sectors of the domestic economy	16

2.3 Damage caused to academic, scientific, cultural and sports exchanges between the Cuban and American peoples	17

3. SOME OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THE BLOCKADE AFFECTS THE US ECONOMY, THE US PEOPLE AND OTHER NATIONS	18

CONCLUSIONS	20

INTRODUCTION

The US economic, commercial and financial blockade on Cuba is the longest-lasting and cruellest of its kind known to human history and is an essential element in the United States’ hostile and aggressive policies against the Cuban people. Its aim, made explicit on 6 April 1960 is the destruction of the Cuban Revolution: (…) through frustration and discouragement based on dissatisfaction and economic difficulties (…) to withhold funds and supplies to Cuba in order to cut real income thereby causing starvation, desperation and the overthrow of the government (...)”

It is equally an essential component of the policy of state terrorism against Cuba, which silently, systematically, cumulatively, inhumanly and ruthlessly affects the population with no regard for age, sex, race, religious belief or social position.

This policy, implemented and added to by ten US administrations also amounts to an act of genocide under the provisions of paragraph (c) of article II of the Geneva Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948.

The blockade on Cuba is an act of war and an International Law crime according to the definition of blockade approved in 1909 by the London Naval Conference.

Although the total blockade on trade between Cuba and the United States was formally decreed by an Executive Order issued by President John F. Kennedy on 3 February 1962, measures that are part of the blockade were put in place just a few weeks after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution on 1 January 1959.

The blockade has a marked extraterritorial component. In 1992, with a view to intensifying the effects of Cuba’s loss of 85% of its foreign trade after the Soviet Union and the European socialist bloc fell apart, the United States passed the Torricelli Act, which removed Cuba’s ability to purchase medicines and food from US subsidiaries in third countries which stood at more than US$700 million. The Torricelli Act placed tight restrictions on ships sailing to and from Cuba, thus making its serious extraterritorial provisions formal.

The 1996 Helms-Burton Act made the effects of the blockade worse, increased the number and scope of the provisions with an extraterritorial impact, instituted persecution of and sanctions on current and potential foreign investors in Cuba and authorised funding for hostile, subversive and aggressive acts against the Cuban people.

As a result of strong pressure from agricultural sectors in the United States and from Congress, the US government, by late 2001, gave authorisation, albeit with severe restrictions and complicated procedures, to extraordinary imports of food and medicines by Cuba. Cuba has to pay cash and in advance — with no chance of obtaining financial credit, not even private credit-. The sale and transportation of the merchandise implies that a licence has to be obtained for each operation. Cuba cannot use its merchant fleet for transporting these goods, it has to use ships from third countries, and, mostly, from the United States. Payments are made through banks in third countries since direct banking relations are forbidden.

The restrictions on importing medical goods are so extensive that these are almost unfeasible. They include the exporter having to verify the use of the product or the equipment when it reaches its final destination and a ban on the sale to Cuba of goods and equipment involving advanced technology.

More than 70% of Cubans were born and have lived under the blockade. The Cuban people defends its right to self-determination and demands respect for it sovereign system of independence, social justice and equality.

According to preliminary, conservative estimates, the direct economic damage to the Cuban people resulting from the blockade is over US$82 billion, an average of US$1782 million annually. This figure does not include the more than US$54 billion of direct damage due to sabotage and terrorist acts encouraged, organised and financed from the United States, neither does it include the value of the goods not made or the damage stemming from the burdensome credit conditions imposed on Cuba. This year the damage amounted to US$2,674 million.

The General Assembly’s demand that this blockade policy be ended, contained in thirteen of its resolutions passed with the virtually unanimous support of the UN member states has been defied by US authorities, thus confirming their total contempt for the United Nations, for multilateralism and for international law.

On 30 June 2004 the measures included in the report from the self-proclaimed “Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba” to which George W. Bush had given his approval on 6 May that year, came into effect. Its 450 pages contain proposal for new actions and measures intended to intensify the blockade by stepping up actions aimed at discouraging tourism and investment in Cuba, by restricting financial flow and visits to the island and by placing even more restrictions on family remittances and exchanges in various spheres, the aim being to bring about conditions which would allow the US to intervene in Cuba, thus permitting them to impose the “regime change” to which the US president made reference on 20 May of that year.

The period covered by this report — the second half of 2004 and the first half of 2005— has witnessed the implementation of those measures; this once again proves the US administration’s criminal plans for the Cuban people.

·	Steps taken by the United States to intensify the blockade

·	8 July 2004, in compliance with President Bush’s proclamation 7757, the Coastguard service promulgated new regulations, which place restrictions on pleasure craft leaving US ports with the intention of entering Cuban waters. It can apply fines of US$25,000 or five years in prison or both. In addition, those who violate this provision can have their boats seized. ·	30 September 2004, the US Treasury Department let it be known that, following the recent changes to the Regulation for Control of Cuban Assets, 31, CFR part 515 (the Regulations), US citizens or permanent residents cannot legally buy products of Cuban origin, including tobacco and alcohol in a third country not even for their personal use abroad. The penalty for violating these Regulations can be a fine of as high as one million dollars for corporations and of US$250,000 and up to 10 years in jail for individuals. ·	9 October 2004, the Under secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs in the State Department, Dan W. Fisk, announced that they were setting up a “Group For Persecution of Cuban Assets” to investigate new ways for hard currency to move into and out of Cuba and ways to stop these. ·	In the second half of 2004, the OFAC declared the Melfi Marine Corporation S.A. and Tour Marketing Ltd to be “especially designated nationals”, and SERCUBA to be a “Cuban national”; this resulted in the immediate implementation of blockade measures to these companies. ·	In January 2005, it turned out that the OFAC had been interpreting the regulations on travel to Cuba in such a way that US citizens are not permitted to take part in meetings in Cuba, which are sponsored or organised by UN agencies unless they first obtain a licence to do so. ·	On 22 February 2005 the OFAC reinterpreted the concept of payment of cash and in advance” for sales of U.S. agricultural and medical products to Cuba saying that this means that payment must be made before the merchandise is loaded in a US port for shipping to Cuba. This measure came into effect 24 March 2005. ·	24 February 2005 an appeal court revoked the 29 March 2004 decision of a New York judge who had ruled that the United States, in order to comply with international treaties, was obliged to recognise the rights of CUBATABACO- a Cuban company- over the Cohíba trademark in US territory under the doctrine of famous trademarks. ·	In April, the new top executives of Sherrit- the Canadian company- and their families were denied entry into the United States as per Title IV of the Helms Burton Act.

·	Pressure, threats and sanctions against individuals, institutions and NGOs

·	6 July 2004 the OFAC warned those taking part in the US organisation Pastors for Peace’s solidarity Caravan that anyone who travelled to Cuba without the appropriate Treasury Department’s licence would be subject to the penalties set forth in the regulations. Traditionally, the Caravan has come to Cuba to bring donations of medicines, used computers, toys, books etc. ·	12 November 2004, the president of the Cuban-American Alliance for Educational Funds (CAAEF) received a letter from the OFAC asking for a list of all the people and institutions who had made use of their travel licence in the last five years. ·	23 November 2004, Washington’s Corcoran Art gallery, following pressure from the OFAC and the State Department, cancelled a cultural evening sponsored by the Cuban Interests Section. ·	30 March 2005 the OFAC sent a letter to the US-Cuba Labor Exchange insisting that it “cease and desist” from promoting and organising a trip for a delegation to attend the 4th Hemispheric Meeting of Struggle against the FTAA and the May Day celebrations in Cuba. The OFAC also demanded that it send them a detailed list, within 20 working days, with information about the members of the aforementioned delegation. ·	In April 2005, the OFAC sent a circular letter to organisations that have licences for trips to Cuba for religious reasons informing them that they were being investigated for alleged “abuses of religious licences” which could lead to the suspension or revocation of their licences and administrative fines or penalties. The letter made a point of telling them that donations to Cuba by religious organisations or by individuals or groups need authorisation from the Department of Commerce. ·	In 2004, the OFAC imposed fines on 316 US citizens and residents for violation of several of the blockade’s provisions. In the first quarter of 2005, 307 fines had already been handed out. ·	Although the new restrictions on travel only began to be applied in the second half of 2004, trips by Americans to Cuba decreased by 40.5 percent compared to 2003. The trips by Cubans resident in the United States suffered a 50.3% drop in the same period.

·	Growing opposition to the blockade within the United States

The US government continues to ignore the public’s opposition to the blockade in its own country. This has been made evident by many speeches and a lot of action in Congress and in state government bodies and by well-known political and intellectual figures, non-governmental organisations and business sectors. Some of the most important of these are: ·	7 July 2004, with 221 votes for and 194 against, the House of Representatives passed an amendment proposed by congressperson Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to the “Appropriations Act for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State and for the judicial branch for the year 2005” which forbids the use of funds to implement the new regulations on sending packages and the limits on the personal luggage of those travelling to Cuba. ·	21 September 2004, the House Representatives passed for 225 votes against 174 an amendment proposed by Representative Jim Davis (D-FL), which prohibits the use of moneys allocated to OFAC to apply restrictions on travels by Cuban migrants to the island. Such restrictions are in force since 30 June 2004. ·	22 September 2004 the House of Representatives passed two amendments on Cuba to the “Appropriations Act for the Departments of the Treasury and of Transport for the year 2005”. The first, proposed by Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Charles Rangel (D-NY) bans the use of moneys assigned to the OFAC to apply the regulations promulgated on 30 June, which place obstacles in the way of US student programmes in Cuba. The second, moved by Maxine Waters (D-CA) prevents the use of the moneys assigned to implement the restrictions on food and medicine exports to Cuba, including those regulations having to do with access to private credit. ·	 All of these amendments were, however, omitted from the final text of the acts, citing various pettifogging procedural arguments. ·	From 9 – 12 January 2005 the Annual Convention of the American Farmers’ Federation (AFBF) passed a resolution asking that President George W. Bush’s administration immediately normalise trade with Cuba. ·	16 March 2005, The US Rice Federation urged Congress to overturn the regulation concerning payments for food purchases by Cuba and to allow existing agreements to be performed as per the Reform of Sanctions Act of 2000. ·	On 26 April 2005 the formation of the Cuba-US Trade Association was officially announced. More than 30 companies, state agencies and organisations from 19 US states are members and its purpose is to work for the elimination of restrictions on trade with Cuba. The members include the large companies ADM, Caterpillar, and Cargill. The board of directors includes various former secretaries of trade, and defence, one former commercial representative and a former director of the CIA and famous people like David Rockefeller. ·	In the first four months of this year, Representatives and Senators, both Republican and Democrat, have proposed more than a dozen bills and amendments to eliminate various bans of the blockade.

1. EXTRATERRITORIAL ASPECTS OF BLOCKADE POLICY

The falsity of the US government’s cynical efforts to present the blockade on Cuba as an exclusively bilateral affair has been clearly demonstrated by the impact on numerous States and on the citizens and companies of third states of the extraterritorial provisions of the blockade; not even international organisations of the United Nations system have been able to avoid this. 1.1 increasing impact of the Blockade brought about by the United States’ growing involvement in the international economy

The damage caused by the extraterritorial nature of the blockade is compounded by the significant involvement of the United States and its companies in transnational trade and investments. The United States controls 45% of the biggest transnational companies in the world, including 8 of the 10 major ones. It is also the main source of investment in the world. It went from investing US$125 billion overseas in 2002 to investing US$152 billion in 2003. In this period, its share of total world direct foreign investment grew from 19% to 25%. The United States is the biggest importer of goods internationally (21.9 % of total) and is in first place in trade in services.

Both investment by companies from third countries in the United States and those of US companies abroad which are basically in the form of total or partial mergers and take-overs of other companies worsen the extraterritorial effects of the blockade by reducing Cuba’s economic space and by making it more difficult, at times impossible for Cuba to find partners and suppliers to get round the ironclad US blockade.

Below we give some examples:

·	A large part of the technology, equipment, and inputs of the Centre for Molecular Immunology which develops and manufactures diagnostic and therapeutic equipment, such as anti-cancer vaccines, came from the Swedish company Pharmacia, which was taken over by Amersham and then by the US company General Electric. The latter, once it took possession, gave Amersham a week to close its office in Cuba and end all of its contacts with the Island/ 25% of the technical equipment purchased from Pharmacia are not working because there are no spare parts.

·	 Under the auspices of the World Fund for the Fight against AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis, run by the UNDP, US$50,400’s worth tinned meat for those living with AIDS was bought from the Brazilian company Oro Rojo. Later, this company informed Cuba that the factory had been bought by a US firm and that one of the first instructions they had received was to cancel all business with Cuba.

Aware of the importance of the US market and the US’s level of technological development, a large number of companies in various parts of the world, even when they have no share capital from or in the United States nor any significant presence in the US market, refrain from doing business with Cuba or break off their relations with her in order not to jeopardise any possible future tie with capital from the superpower.

·	The First Caribbean International Bank of the Bahamas sent a letter to the HAVANATUR company saying that as from 7 February 2005 they would be terminating their banking relations because “they didn’t want to have problems with the Americans”.

·	The British bank Barclays recently said to executives of the Cubaniquel company in London that they were considering not doing business with the latter since their manager was an American and that US government laws apply not only to companies but also to individuals. 1.2 Civil sanctions imposed on various bodies (companies, banking institutions and NGOs) by the OFAC.

In 2004, a total of 77 companies, banking institutions and NGOs from all over the world were fined for actions considered to have violated blockade regulations.

Of them 11 are foreign companies or subsidiaries of US companies located in third countries such as Mexico, Canada, Panama, Italy, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, the Bahamas and the British West Indies. Another seven such as Iberia, Alitalia, Air Jamaica, Daewoo and the Bank of China were penalised allegedly because their subsidiaries in the United States violated certain provisions of the blockade on Cuba. Eight of them paid fines of more than US$50,000.

Some of the most noteworthy fines imposed in 2004 include:

·	Alpha Pharmaceutical Inc.; ICN Farmacéutica S.A. de C.V.; Laboratorios Grossman, S.A. based in Panama and Mexico DF — US$198 711.73 for importing and exporting goods to and from Cuba between 1998 and 2003. ·	Trinity Industries of Mexico, S.A. de C.V., based in Mexico City, Mexico — US$55,000 for selling goods destined for Cuba and for financing their shipping in 2001.

In the first four months of 2005 five organisations were penalised by the OFAC with fines (I bank, 3 companies and an NGO). They included the Martinair Company Holland N.V. dba, Martinair USA, which has its headquarters in the Netherlands and which was given a fine of US$6,300 for having provided travel services without having a licence and for transferring funds in 2003. 1.3 How the extraterritorial nature of the blockade affects foreign trade and investment.

Estimates say that in 2004 the negative effects of the blockade on Cuban foreign trade reached US$822.6 million, a figure which is US$57.2 million higher than the previous year’s.

The largest damage was related to the implementation of the blockade’s extraterritorial regulations; which amounted to US$380 million, nevertheless failure to access the US market continues to be significant as can be seen in the following chart.

Failure to access what should be a natural market for Cuba — the estimated losses from this are US$305.2 million— has made it necessary to relocate our imports and exports in third countries.

Additionally, the limited purchases of food and medicines from the United States involve economic costs of US$23.7 million, which result from the restrictions under which these purchases are made. These are extra expenses that arise from having to change currencies when the transactions are made through intermediary banks, from hold-ups in unloading the ships because of delays in receiving payments and because of freightage since the ships have to return to the United States empty.

Cuban exports of reviews, magazines and newspapers that exceptionally could be made to the United States have to be made through third countries and thus the price of these transactions increases by 40%. Some U.S. institutions, therefore, have stopped purchasing Cuban publications and thus Cuba loses potential income.

From a financial point of view, the blockade has had a marked impact on the high Country Risk assigned to Cuba. Economic losses of US$72.2 million have been attributed to this because it makes it difficult to find foreign financing. 1.3 Impact on the expansion of foreign investment and economic cooperation.

Cuba cannot obtain US investment or credit for development from the main US and international financial and monetary institutions.

In 2004, the World Bank assigned US$5,3 billion to Latin America and the Caribbean and the IDB handed out US$4,232 million for development programmes in the region.

Not one penny of this money went to Cuba. If we take the case of the IDB and use an economy similar to the Cuban economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product and population — such as Ecuador— as a reference point, then Cuba could have had access to approximately US$48.8 million in financing, were it not for the blockade.

In 2003, the United States donated US$1,818 million as Official Development Aid to Latin America and the Caribbean. Cuba received none of this money.

The US government fraudulently manipulates information about the resources Cuba receives from the United States suggesting that these amount to more than one billion dollars annually in donations authorised by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Commerce. In 2004, Cuba only received US$4 368 279 in US government authorised donations from NGOs.

The effect of the blockade on investment and cooperation has been significant. Examples of this are:

·	The company VECO Canada Ltd in which Americans have shares was prevented from joining with CUPET S.A. in projects to develop infrastructure and technological capacity for distributing and storing fuel in Cuba. After talks had started and various proposals had been put forward, the Canadian firm was obliged to withdraw from the project. ·	The joint ventures CUBANCO S.A. and SILARES TERMINALES CARIBE N.V. both of which have foreign capital invested and which depend on the international cruise ship and ferry market in order to meet their objectives have had to pay US$2 581 816 extra fees for docking and US$52 526 722 for pax fees. The blockade establishes that more than 70% of the cruise ships, which operate in the Caribbean, cannot include Cuban ports in their weekly cruises since their home ports are in Florida (Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Cape Canaveral and Tampa).

1.4 Section 211 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of the United States of America of 1999 and the new aggressions in the trademarks issue.

The US government has continued to implement Section 211 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, which prevents Cuban holders or their heirs, including foreign companies with interests in Cuba, from having their trademarks or trade names which are registered and protected in Cuba from being recognised or their benefits received in US territory claiming these are connected to former property nationalised by the Cuban government.

The implementation of Section 211 has very negative implications not only bilaterally but also multilaterally. Bilaterally speaking, it tightens the blockade since its aim is to prevent any expansion of foreign investments in Cuba that have to do with putting Cuban products, whose brands and trade marks enjoy much prestige worldwide, on the international market.

The implementation of this Section by a New York court prevented a ruling favourable to a company with Cuban and French interests (Havana Club Holding) from being handed down. The court case had been going on since 1996 — in other words, before Section 211 was passed— over Bacardi’s appropriation of the right to use the Havana Club Havana Club in the United States by fraudulently marketing in that country rum produced outside Cuba.

Suffice it to remember the decision of the WTO Appellate Body in January 2002 which concluded that Section 211 violates the obligations of the National and Most Favoured Nation Treatment of the TRIPS Agreement and urged the United States to bring this piece of legislation into line with its obligation within a reasonable period of time.

The US government’s repeated postponement of its obligation to abide by the verdict of the WTO demonstrates its lack of political will, at a particularly difficult juncture in multilateral trade negotiations to contribute to the effectiveness of the procedures for solving disagreements in that organisation.

Cuba, on the other hand, has honoured and continues to protect the rights of hundreds of US companies which keep the registration of more than 5000 trademarks, trade names and patents up to date in Cuba.

Draft amendment S.691 introduced on 4 April 2005 by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) seeks to make cosmetic changes to Section 211 in order to keep it in force without really following the recommendations of the WTO. The draft amendment is echoed in the House of Representatives by (Draft amendment HR-1689) introduced on 19 April 2005 by Representative Tom Feeney (R-Fl) and co-sponsored by congresspersons opposed to ending the blockade on Cuba such as Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Dan Burton.

Cuba closely follows the evolution of these legislative bills and considers that the final annulment of Section 211 is the only acceptable solution.

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals of the New York Second Circuit has recently ratified, unexpectedly, its decision to leave unprotected the legitimate trademark rights of the Cuban Cigar Company “CUBATABACO”, the owner of the prestigious brand of Cohíba Cuban cigars.

With this decision, and with the decision of such Court that the blockade provisions come first, the U.S. international obligations in terms of trade mark and commercial protection are being ignored.

The usurpation of internationally prestigious Cuban trademarks, which are under the protection of international agreements and treaties in U.S. territory, could lead to an environment of uncertainty, with concrete negative impact not only for Cuba, but also for the economic and commercial interests of U.S. entities themselves.

1.5. Examples of the impact of the extraterritorial application of the blockade

·	In August 2005, we hired from Brazilian Enterprise MEBRAFE, equipment for the refurbishment of all the cold-storage plants from UNION LACTEA, as part of the social program to provide soy yougurt to children from 7 to 13 years of age. The equipment hired included 14 SABROE refrigeration compressors for US$ 339 389, a price which increases in 40 percent in Europe. SABROE-a Danish Company- was bought by US York Company, and consequently, the York’s provider from Brazil informed to have received instruction from its home office indicating that the sale of compressors to Cuba was forbidden. ·	In 2005, Cuba is manufacturing or importing 3 million pressure cookers and the same number of electric rice cookers to distribute to each household for subsidized prices in order to improve the population’s living standards. In the case of pressure cookers, we did not succeed in the three attempts with three Mexican companies to purchase components for their manufacture or the finished products:

1)	In March 2005, we requested FENOL- a product used in the manufacture of the pressure cookers’ handle- from VAFE S.A. DE C.V. After initiating its offer, this Company was obliged to cancel it because this material was U.S.-made.

2)	We then decided to change the technology using POLYPROPYLENE. We ordered this product from INDELPRO S.A. We received a proposal with a good price, which was cancelled by the provider when he learned that it was destined for Cuba.

3)	We then immediately started to sign contracts for the purchase of 185 thousand units from EKCO trademark. A money transfer was made through MOTOINSA to the Mexican bank BANAMEX – a branch from the U.S. bank CITYBANK. The transaction was thwarted due to pressures from U.S. authorities.

·	The shipping company ZIM from Israel, was requested information on quotations of Havana-Chile traffic, and they said it was not possible to provide us with that information, or make that operation due to the Torricelli Act, because the ships from this line travel frequently to U.S. ports. As a result, we had to accept a higher rate from another foreign company. Cases like these have caused losses in the period from the Cuban fishing companies worth U.S.$ 3 593 400, of which U.S.$ 615 100 were because of freight charges. With the lost resources, in that period, 5 245.9 tons of fish could have been purchased for the consumption of the population, at the international market approximate price of U.S. $ 685 per ton. ·	We have not been able to purchase the spare parts and radioactive sources for two automatic charging machines for the treatment of gynaecological tumors (brachytherapy equipment), purchased from Canadian Company MSD NORDION, because this company sold the brand of these pieces of equipment to the U.S. company VARIAN. As a result, 120 patients were not able to receive the best choice of treatment until those machines were replaced by other machines from Europe. ·	RADIOMETER- a Danish company that producers gasometers (equipment used at intensive-care units to analyse gas in blood) with direct links with MEDICUBA- an importer company for over 35 years- was forced in 2004 to close down its rep- office in Havana as it was purchased by the U.S. company DONAHER. Ever since, this represents additional expenses of around U.S.$ 200 thousand annually. ·	The School of Biology of the University of Havana was denied the possibility to purchase a set of reagents for the extraction of DNA and RNA from biological samples useful for studies with applications in biotechnology by the companies SIGMA and CLONTEC. Although financing for such purchase would come from a project with Swedish funds, the provider denied the purchase referring to the blockade. ·	The Pharmacy and Food Institute, the School of Chemistry, and the School of Biology of the University of Havana, have not been able to purchase spectrophotometers recently or its spare parts for lab practices. This Institute had purchased equipment worth U.S.$ 13 000 per unit from the European firm LKB-Pharmacia, which was purchased by U.S. interests, therefore the subsidiary of such firm in Spain refused to supply the spare parts. A Professor tried to purchase new lamps at the afore-mentioned branch in Spain, and this possibility was denied when they learned that she was Cuban. ·	VIP INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Canadian company which represented GRAN CARIBE Hotel Group in the Global Distribution Systems (hotel reservations and other services) informed early July 2004 that on the 31st. of that month it would interrupt its services, since the U.S. government had established that they would not continue to process them since these hotel reservations are done through companies based in U.S. territory. The potential losses of reservations amounted to U.S.$ 300 000. ·	On 2 December 2004, the major hotel and travel corporation CENDANT CORPORATION, with its headquarters in the United States purchased EBOOKERS, one of the largest online reservations companies in the United Kingdom, which processed reservations for the GRAN CARIBE Group. As from 1 January 2005, it interrupted its services as a result of the blockade provisions. ·	A U.S. company bought 2 other online distribution channels in the United Kingdom OCTOPUS and TRAVELBAG, further curtailing the available alternatives. ·	The purchase of spare parts for equipment used by Cuban Antidoping Laboratory has been prohibited. This has caused the equipment to be deactivated sometimes, thus bringing about a total damage worth U.S.$397 008.80. Some of the necessary parts, although made in Europe, such as the auto-injector model as2000 of Italian manufacture- are part of a U.S.-made mass spectrometer of isotopic relations for which it cannot be purchased. ·	Cuba’s Civil Aviation Authorities was unable to lease a U.S. PW 127 engine, thus causing an ATR European aircraft to stop for 17 days, bringing about a total economic damage of U.S.$126 000. ·	In September 2004, NOVAIR- a Swedish Air Company, which had signed a lease contract with CUBANA DE AVIACION, the Cuban Airline- of an Airbus 330 since February 2003, notified that its maintenance provider SR TECHNICS had stated to have problems to continue to render services in Havana since it was violating the regulations of the U.S. Department of Commerce. On 30 April 2005 it ceased its leasing of the A330 and CUBANA had to lease another aircraft which was more expensive in order to fulfil its commitments with the customers thus incurring in an extra expense of over 2 million dollars.

2. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT 2.1 Overview of the impact of the blockade on some of the most vital social sectors.

Such highly sensitive sectors as food, health-care, education, housing and transport have been among the main targets of this genocidal policy.

During this year, the cost of the blockade for the food industry amounts to around U.S.$ 55 863 957, a figure with which we could guarantee the technological improvement of around one third of this industry.

In 2004 alone, the direct cost of the blockade in the Cuban poultry industry was higher than U.S.$ 16.1 million, which has curtailed a source of protein for the people and has blocked such industry to have a productive increase equal to U.S.$30 million, with which additional 750 million eggs could have been produced.

Having no access to advanced technology- mostly Americans- paralysed poultry meat production during the year, thus preventing the industry from having its own production with a value added of over U.S.$5 million. This caused over 4 000 workers of the sector to be relocated in other jobs.

The Entrepreneurial Group of Various Crops of the Ministry of Agriculture assessed the additional freight costs in the importation of potato seeds and vegetables from third countries in over one million dollars, which accounts for 50 per cent of the cost of the vegetable seed imported yearly.

In the health-care sector, the blockade caused damage worth U.S.$ 75.7 million during the period covered by this report. This figure does not include the untold damage due to the suffering inflicted to the Cuban people because of the shortages of medicines, equipment and expendable material.

The programme to assist children in need of liver transplant has been affected as well. One example is the lack of response from Abbot Laboratories, to the purchase of the equipment that sets doses of Tracolimus (FK506) immunosupressor, which is only produced by that American Lab, and which is indispensable to watch over the blood levels, whose variations may bring about complications due to infections and secondary tumors.

The sales of cholesterol-reducing medicines in the United States amounted to U.S.$18 billion in 2004. If policosanol, which is produced in Cuba, had been introduced in the U.S. and had only reached 1 per cent of the sales, Cuba would have received revenues worth U.S. $180 million because of that in 2004.

Other examples of how the blockade affects this sector are:

·	Purchase of kits for the diagnosis in the Medical Entomology Labs in far markets, for instance in Asia. Our country would have saved 30 per cent of the costs, U.S. $52 116, if it had bought them in the U.S. market. ·	During 2004 U.S.$ 1 518 905 were spent in the purchase of insecticides. Had they been bought in the U.S. Transport costs would have been cheaper in around 20 per cent, and therefore around U.S.$303 781 would have been saved. ·	The Cuban State Cardiology Programme is affected since expendable materials used in interventional cardiology cannot be bought directly from the manufacturers. This has accounted for an additional cost of U.S.$ 66 275. ·	The U.S. company GIBCO produces Amniomax, which is a culture medium for the detection of congenital disorders in pregnant women over 38 years and it is the only internationally known product to carry out such test. Around 100-ml 6 160 flasks of it are imported annually for the National Center for Medical Genetics, through an intermediary. Had we been able to purchase it directly, U.S.$136 700 would be saved.

The negative impact caused in the period for the educational sector amount to U.S.$ 60 million, which would have been enough to eradicate the main shortages faced.

Such sector still endures the negative impact contained in the last two reports that Cuba sent to the General Secretary regarding the supply of pencils, notebooks, paper and other materials and teaching equipment necessary for the general use in the educational-teaching process, and the negative impact in the care of children with special education needs, mainly for the purchase and/or repairs of Braille machines for blind and visually-impaired children, and for the purchase of braillon paper, and equipment for the special schools for children with strabismus and amblyopia, among others.

Around 80 per cent of the maintenance chambers and food freezing machines in the 786 centres for educational intermediate level are either inactive or in a very bad shape.

For their comprehensive repair around U.S.$9 420 000 are needed, equivalent to an annual cost of U.S.$ 1 884 000 for a five-year period, which we have not been able to cover due to the constraints of resources as a result of the blockade.

The Transport Sector has also been severely affected. For example, the situation of the coupling wedges and engines for Metrobus service for the City of Havana, especially the U.S.-made ones can be mentioned. With the U.S.$795 642.33 that were paid in excess in the purchase through intermediaries of 98 coupling wedges during the year, we could have bought another 62 wedges. In addition, it was necessary to pay an additional amount of U.S.$567 978 for not being able to purchase spare parts directly in the U.S. With these two quantities, the service could have been increased in 30 percent.

In order to solve the main housing problems in our country, it would be necessary to build at least 50 000 housing units for 10 years, 20 000 of them only in the capital city. At present, the construction cost of a housing unit is up to U.S.$8 000, according to the constructive typology established. That is, with U.S.$4 billion in one decade, half million housing units can be built, which accounts for around the shortage of housing units in the country.

If we could purchase construction materials in U.S. companies or branches in the area, the expenses would decrease an average of 35 percent in building a housing unit.

2.2. Impact on other sectors of the domestic economy

No sector of the Cuban economy has escaped the negative impact of the blockade.

·	In the period covered by this reported, unearned revenues due to lack of airport services and others, as from the travel ban imposed on U.S. citizens, amounted to U.S.$152 234 987. Additional travel restrictions- in force since 30 June 2004- have caused 87 percent of U.S. aircrafts, which should have operated in our airports, not to do so. This brought about economic damage worth U.S.$3 537 384. ·	In the Civil Aviation Sector, the total impact of the period amounted to U.S. $178 061 459. With the unearned resources in this sector in the last year, a total number of 22 258 housing units could have been built. ·	In the light industry, the impact due to increased prices and extra freight expenses amounted to U.S.$12 402 800. With this amount, we could have doubled the basic family basket to the population in terms of toilet soap and bar soap. Likewise, the toothpaste could have increased in 48.7 percent. ·	Taking into account that Cuban sugar exports accounted for 58.2 percent last year of the total imports of this product in the United States the repercussions of this crop on Cuba in this period amounted to U.S. $ 154.1 million. ·	Losses in the tourism sector amounted to U.S.$ 1 043 million from April 2004 to March 2005. With U.S.$80 million, two 5-star hotels could have been built, with 500 rooms each, and 3000 deteriorated hotel rooms could have been refurbished. ·	The performance of Cuban musicians in the U.S. market is still curtailed. As from the high demand of Cuban artists in the United States, the Cuban Enterprise ARTEX, would have collected at least U.S.$9 million. With the sales of CDs, DVDs and other musical products, we could have earned at least U.S.$1 million. With only U.S.$3 059 600 all the material shortages affecting the school programs for children with Special Education Needs would have been eliminated.

2.3 Damage caused to academic, scientific, cultural and sports exchanges between the Cuban and American peoples

The above-mentioned impact is compounded with the intention by the U.S. government to put a halt to the academic, scientific, cultural and sports exchange between both peoples:

·	Cuban institutions and writers cannot participate in the book fairs in the United States, including San Juan, Puerto Rico Fair. Since Cuba was not able to participate in any of the two previous editions of the San Juan Fair, U.S.$ 15 000 were not earned. With this amount, we would have financed a popular edition of “the Quixote” by Cervantes with no less than 7 thousand copies. ·	The participation of Cuban scientists in international scientific meetings and events is systematically blocked- some of them are multilateral-, since their entry visas to the United States have been denied. Among the tens of events we were not able to attend are the following:

v	29th International Congress on Sanitary and Environmental Engineering. San Juan, Puerto Rico, 22 - 26 August 2004. v	Scientific Exchange between Harvard University and the Pedro Kouri Tropical Medicine Institute. Boston, 1-10 September 2004. v	Scientific Exchange on the Cuban experience in the prevention of the Chronic Renal Disease in the Primary Health-Care. San Juan, Puerto Rico 3-13 November 2004. v	Annual Meeting of the American Association of Oncology. Orlando, Florida, 13-17 May 2005. v	110th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Urology. Texas, 21-26 May 2005.

All Cuban academicians invited to attend the 20th Congress of Latin American Studies Association (LASA) held in October 2004, in Las Vegas -64 in total- were denied their visas. This was an unprecedented event.

Since the enactment in 2004 of the additional measures prohibiting travels to Cuba, no group of students has been able to travel to our country. The Department of the Treasury’s license to travel was taken away from the U.S. NGO MEDIC. This organization offered courses annually in Cuba for 200 students and professors on medicine, nursing and public health.

The U.S. government blocked the participation of U.S. scientists and academicians in several scientific meetings and events held in Cuba, among them:

v	International Conference on Maxilo-facial Surgery, in June 2004. The 50 Americans scheduled to travel were denied the permit to travel to Cuba. v	The Pan-American Congress on Children-Juvenile Mental Health, Havana, 30 March to 1 April 2004. A few days before the beginning date, the 160 Americans who had confirmed their participation, received a personal letter from OFAC threatening them with strong sanctions and denying their participation. This event was sponsored by the Latin American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP).

The sports exchanges have also been affected. The General License for U.S. athletes to participate in amateur and semi-professional competitions in Cuba was eliminated, even in those international federation- sponsored competitions. The reduction in the participation of U.S. athletes in events held in Cuba was significant. In 2004, the number was 128 athletes and only 34 in the first quarter of 2005.

In November 2004, there were some difficulties for the World Team Sport’s disabled athletes to participate in the Marabana marathon because their travel licence was withdrawn in 2003. Some 90 U.S. runners, who would participate in this competition on a regular basis, were not able to do so.

Since April 2004 until May 2005, four delegations composed of 5 officials of the Cuban sports did not receive visas to travel to the U.S., even when they were going to participate in important congresses and courses of Olympic Solidarity.

3. SOME OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THE BLOCKADE AFFECTS THE US ECONOMY, THE US PEOPLE AND OTHER NATIONS

The blockade policy also damages U.S. citizens and citizens of third countries.

The lifting of the blockade could generate 100 000 jobs and additional revenues worth U.S.$6 billion to the United States, according to a study submitted by the Director of the Center for Business and Economic Research of the University of Southern Alabama last June

A study by the World Policy Institute of New York, revealed that only the unrestricted sale of food and medicines could generate annually U.S.$1.6 billion- approximately four times the current amount of food purchases-, and 20 000 additional jobs to the U.S. economy.

The American people as well as other countries have also suffered the direct impact of the prohibition of Cuban institutions to participate in the clinical trials of US-manufactured drugs. For instance, the American engineers of the trials of a drug against sickle cells, considered that the Cuban participation could have placed the new medication in the market at least a year earlier, since the trials would have had the benefits of the existence in Cuba of a national record of patients suffering that disease, which is non-existent in the US.7

The negative impact of the blockade on the Cuban biotechnology also bears negative indirect consequences for the health in underdeveloped countries. Cuba ranks number one in the world among countries with more preventive and therapeutic vaccines projects to fight the main diseases affecting the Third World, with an overall of 29 projects.

As an illustration, the organization “Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative (PDVI-USA) and the “National Vaccine Institute” (NVI) of the Republic of Korea chose a project from the Cuban Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology among 100 international projects on account of its great significance in the future creation of a vaccine against dengue, a disease scourging a large number of underdeveloped countries. Financing was granted for the remaining 12 selected projects while Cuba’s had to be discarded as a result of the blockade.

In 2002, heart diseases accounted for 240.8 deaths in every 100 000 people in the U.S., which made it the first cause of death in that country. Cerebro-vascular diseases with 56.2 deaths in every 100 000 inhabitants account for the third cause of death. According to the editors of “Harvard International Review”, Ryan Bradley and Edy Rim, an independent study by the Geneva University endorsed the new Cuban drug PPG (Ateromixol or policosanol) created in 1991 as the best anti-cholesterol drug available. 8

A scientific article entitled “Meta-analysis of Natural Therapies for Hyperlipidemia: Plat Sterols and Stanols Versus Policosanol”, published in Pharmacotherapy in 2005, points out that stanols and sterols of plants available in the U.S. are well tolerated and safe but policosanol (PPG) is more effective than the afore-mentioned in the reduction of LDL (bad cholesterol) level and it is much better for patients as one tablet a day is enough, at a much lower price and with more potentials regarding cardiovascular benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

·	The direct economic damage to the Cuban people due to the application of the blockade, as from preliminary, conservative estimates is over U.S.$ 82 billion, an average of U.S.$1782 million annually. This figure does not include the more than U.S.$54 billion of direct damage to the country due to sabotages and terrorist acts encouraged, organized and financed from the United States, neither does it include the value of goods not made or the damage stemming from the burdensome credit conditions imposed on Cuba. This year the damage amounted to U.S.$ 2 674 million.

·	In his second term, President George W. Bush’s administration continues to escalate the hostility of the blockade-on-the-Cuban-people policy to unprecedented heights. This policy openly violates the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of International Law, of free trade and navigation, and the wishes of the international community expressed repeatedly and almost unanimously in successive resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly.

·	Applying the U.S. government blockade against Cuba not only affects severely the Cuban people; it also damages the interests and rights of the U.S. people and those of other countries in the world. This last year has seen an increase of the extraterritorial effect of the blockade after a tightened implementation of regulations, sanctions and threats against foreign citizens and companies.

·	The Cuban people will not renounce its independence, its sovereignty, and its right to self-determination. This decision has allowed, despite the blockade, the construction of an ever-increasing fairer, equitable and cultivated society in solidarity with other peoples of the world, including the United States.

·	Cuba knows that it can continue to count on the support of the international community in defense of its just claim so that the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the Government of the United States against the Cuban people be lifted.