Interview
- Isaac Saney, Co-Chair and Spokesperson,
Canadian Network on Cuba -
Vancouver monthly picket, April 17, 2019, demands end to blockade of
Cuba.
The U.S. Helms-Burton Act was conceived to
codify
and tighten the economic, commercial and financial blockade
imposed on Cuba in 1962 for the purpose of subverting and
overthrowing the Cuban government and imposing a regime to the
liking of the U.S. government.
TML Weekly interviewed Isaac Saney, Co-Chair and
Spokesperson of the Canadian Network on Cuba (CNC), to explain for
our readers what is the Helms-Burton Act and its Title III
and what is at stake.
***
TML Weekly: What is the Helms-Burton
Act? What is its intent and aim?
Isaac Saney:
The Helms-Burton Act was
passed in 1996. It was meant to tighten and further U.S. economic
sanctions against Cuba and also to codify them as law in the
sense that this was an act of Congress rather than actions under
the purview of the U.S. President. The President had been using
the Trading with the Enemy Act
to issue political directives that
sanctioned Cuba economically. The Helms-Burton Act
specifically targeted Cuba and established a series of conditions
with regard to the Cuban economy, aimed at the destruction of the
socialist nature of the Cuban economy so as to be acceptable to
the U.S. empire.
Title III of the Act allows U.S. companies and
citizens to sue not only Cuban companies but also international
companies engaging in what the U.S. calls "trafficking in stolen
property," i.e. that very grotesque way of referring to the fact
that Cuba, when the Revolution triumphed, was within its right
under international law to nationalize property owned by foreign
companies in Cuba and that since then some of that property has
been occupied or otherwise used by those Title III targets. Cuba
offered compensation according to international law for the
properties that were nationalized at the beginning of the
Revolution. In the early years of the Revolution, every single
country which faced the nationalization of its properties --
France, Canada, Britain, you name it -- came to an agreement with
Cuba on compensation. Cuba offered compensation to U.S. companies
too, but the United States blocked the attempts of any of these
companies to accept and engage in negotiations with Cuba.
What is interesting is that under the Obama
administration
when there was a formalization of diplomatic relations and an attempt
to move to what was said to be a different relationship, one that was
still aimed at undermining the Revolution, but in new
and less aggressive ways, U.S. companies actually began to look
at some of these approaches to compensation as well. They began
to look at what are referred to as certified cases, to actually
begin to resolve some of the cases. Of course, it is important to
understand that the Cubans themselves say that aside from
compensation for U.S. companies, there is the question of the
enormous damage caused by U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba
which totals over a trillion U.S. dollars. As well, there is the
cost of Cuban lives from all manner of terrorist acts that have
been carried out against Cuba from U.S. territory.
The United States has waged an unabated, unceasing
economic
war against Cuba since the early '60s. The Helms-Burton Act is an
escalation of this war against Cuba and an overt attempt to
economically asphyxiate Cuba through the violation of
international law, by attempting to cut off Cuba's economic links
with other parts of the world and sources of foreign investment.
It is used to take punitive action against companies that are
doing business in Cuba, with those that also carry on business
with or have assets in the U.S. being especially vulnerable.
The Helms-Burton Act's full title is grotesque;
it is
the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of
1996. It has nothing to do with the liberty of Cuba. In fact it is
all about returning Cuba to U.S. domination, hegemony and tutelage. It
has nothing to do with democracy because it is a fundamental violation
of the right of the Cuban people to self-determination. It also
violates the sovereignty of third countries that engage in trade with
Cuba.
When it comes to Canada, for example, the largest single
foreign investor in Cuba is Sherritt International which has
interests in mining, in petroleum, and in other sectors of the
Cuban economy.
TMLW: Tell us about the international
community's opposition to the Helms-Burton Act.
IS: It is opposed by the international
community
because it is a flagrant violation of established norms of
international trade and international law. Its aim is to make
U.S. law the law that trumps (no pun intended) and supersedes
domestic law. For example, in Canada, U.S. law would trump
Canadian law and Canadians would have to follow U.S. law to avoid
putting operations and assets they might have in the U.S. in
jeopardy. Canadian companies themselves would not be allowed to
trade with Cuba without facing some very significant economic
sanctions from the United States.
When the Helms-Burton
Act was passed in 1996, there was opposition from Canada.
There was opposition from European countries. Every U.S.
President, first Clinton and then the others, has suspended Title
III of the Helms-Burton Act every six months in order that
lawsuits cannot be launched against companies by U.S. citizens
whose properties were nationalized or by Cuban-Americans who left
Cuba and became U.S. citizens and claim that there is property
that belonged to them in Cuba for which they have a right to
claim compensation through U.S. courts. What happened under the
Trump administration was they lessened the six-month waiver of
Title III to 45 days, then to an even shorter period, creating an
increased sense of insecurity, until announcing on April 17 that
they would begin fully implementing it as of May 2.
So because of the pressure from the international
community,
the Presidents before Trump decided that they had to waive Title
III. Why? Because at the end of the day its extraterritorial
nature represents a fundamental violation of the sovereignty of
each individual country in the world, attempting to make U.S. law
the dominant law in their countries, trumping and overriding
domestic law when it comes to companies doing business with Cuba.
For example, European countries and Canada, the largest investors
in Cuba, have legislation on the books to limit the effect
of extraterritorial measures initiated by other countries against
entities in their countries. In 1985 Canada adopted the Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act (FEMA), which in 1997
was
further strengthened specifically to deal with the Helms-Burton Act,
by
blocking
its
enforcement
in
Canada.
TMLW: Tell us something about Title III's
violation of Canadian sovereignty and how FEMA is applied.
IS: I will give you an example. In 2017,
we had the case of
Honda
Canada being fined tens of thousands of dollars for having leased
cars to the Cuban Embassy. This was seen as a violation of U.S.
sanctions against Cuba given that a U.S. company, American Honda
Finance Corporation was a majority shareholder of Honda Canada
Finance. The company was fined even though both the lessor and
the lessee were in Canada. There are other cases. Another example
is that the executives of the Canadian company Sherritt
International are barred from travelling to the United States.
Their children are barred from attending U.S. schools because
they can't get visas under Title IV of Helms-Burton.
As an example of what could happen now with the
activation of
Title III, consider the situation of Air Canada, Sunwing, and Air
Transat that are engaged in flying tourists to Cuba, involved in
setting up a whole variety of tourist packages with hotels in
Cuba as well as having airport landing rights. Ships with docking
rights in Cuban ports could also be targeted. It is a fact that
Canada provides the largest single source of tourists for Cuba.
Last year I think more than five million people visited the
island, and there are close to a million-and-a-half Canadians
visiting Cuba annually. Air Canada, Air Transat and Sunwing could
be accused of engaging in business in Cuba that involves what the
United States considers to be nationalized property, what they
call stolen property. Those companies could be subject to a
series of lawsuits and judgments in U.S. courts.
As
for
FEMA,
it
was
enacted
in
1985 to block the extra-territorial
application of foreign laws to Canadian businesses. It enables the
Attorney General to issue orders blocking extraterritorial measures
from being taken against Canadians and Canadian entities. An individual
or corporation that breaches FEMA or an order made under FEMA, can be
subject to fines and/or imprisonment. A Blocking Order issued in 1992
requires that a Canadian corporation notify the Attorney General of any
directive or other communication it receives relating to a U.S.
extraterritorial measure being initiated against it in respect of any
trade or commerce between that corporation and Cuba. It also prohibits
Canadian corporations from complying with any such measures considered
likely to prevent, impede or reduce trade or commerce between Canada
and Cuba.
FEMA
was
amended
in
1997
to
specifically
deal with Title III of the Helms-Burton
Act
so that it now can be used to block U.S. judgments
from being enforced in Canada, restrict the production of records to
U.S. courts in Title III actions, and give Canadians the right to
counter-sue in a Canadian court to recover damages awarded against them
in the U.S. plus court costs. FEMA cannot however be used to recover
monetary damages awarded against any assets Canadian individuals or
businesses might have in the U.S. or possibly other foreign
jurisdictions.
As
far
as
I
know,
FEMA
has
never been enforced in court so there is no case
law to consult regarding its application.
TMLW: Can you elaborate how the
enforcement of Title III will affect Canada-Cuba economic relations?
IS: Canada has significant economic
relations
with Cuba. Are these companies going to succumb to this economic
pressure? If they persist and continue their relations with Cuba
will they be sued in U.S. courts? What will happen then? What
will be the economic impact not only on them but on the Canadian
economy? Or, importantly, will other companies now be extremely
wary of investing in Cuba, of engaging in this kind of commercial
economic practice and intercourse with Cuba for fear of facing
claims for damages under Title III? That is considered by many to
be the main aim of activating Title III.
So there are all of these factors that we have to take
into
consideration. For example, if a suit is brought against Air
Canada, WestJet, Air Transat and Sunwing will they be able to
economically bear that burden? What will happen to tourism? Will
Canadians now find Cuba cut off for them as a tourist
destination? All of these are things for us to bear in mind. And
we also have to bear in mind that Canadians have been travelling
to Cuba in their hundreds upon hundreds of thousands and have
developed a very strong respect for what Cuba has been able to do
in the face of incredible U.S. aggression. They respect the
Cubans for having overcome the obstacles that the U.S. empire
continues to put in their path.
It is going to have a huge impact. Mark Agnew, who is
from the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said that this "could affect any
company which has any relationship with Cuba." Sherritt
International Corporation has, I think, over $2 billion invested
in Cuba. We have other Canadian companies that trade with or are
investing in Cuba. We have banks like the
National Bank of Canada which has offices there. We have Quebec
and Alberta farmers who have significant interactions with Cuba.
We have the airlines. They could be facing very significant
lawsuits that could burden them with economic problems they might
not be able to overcome.
TMLW: Please elaborate on how the
activation of
Title III attacks the Cuban nation and people.
IS: This is a continuation of the war
against
Cuba. It is a fundamental violation of the right of Cuba to trade
with anyone in the world, engage in partnerships with foreign
entities and benefit from foreign investment. It is a violation
of the right of the Cuban people to self-determination, to
determine their political, economic, social and cultural system
without any political interference, a right enshrined in the
Charter of the United Nations and in the various covenants on
international, economic, political and civil rights. It is a
fundamental violation of Cuba's right to choose its own path and
an attempt to return Cuba to being a neo-colony of the United
States. It is an attempt to extinguish its national aspirations
to establish what José Martí, the hero of the Cuban
Revolution,
described as "a nation with all and for all," i.e. a sovereign
nation which is fully in the hands of the Cuban people, a nation
in which the resources are used for the benefit of every citizen,
for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
This is an attempt by the United States to destroy
Cuba's
nation-building project. It is also in a sense an attack on Latin
America and the Caribbean as a whole. The U.S. has clearly said
that the Monroe Doctrine applies and is showing by its actions
that it believes Manifest Destiny also applies, that it has the
right to determine the economic and political arrangements in
Latin America and the Caribbean. Not only does the U.S. say it
has the right but it will use its might to try and enforce it. So
we have what is going on in Venezuela, the attempt to overthrow
the Maduro government and replace it with one that will do U.S.
bidding. We have the declaration that Nicaragua, Venezuela and
Cuba constitute a troika of evil. We have the militarization of
Latin America, the rejection of the call to make Latin America
and the Caribbean a Zone of Peace.
But it is also important to understand what will happen
when Helms-Burton's
Title III is unleashed. I think there will be very
significant challenges from the European Union -- before the
World Trade Organization and using their own blocking statute.
What we may also see with Helms-Burton
Title III is the
shattering of established international arrangements. Does it mean that
might makes right? Will it gain acceptance for the use of force
in its various connotations as the dominant factor in international
relations? Will it gain acceptance for the shredding of
international law?
By opposing Helms-Burton,
not
only
do
we
uphold
the
sovereignty
of
nations,
and
in
our
particular
case,
Canadian
sovereignty,
but
we
uphold
the
right
to and the necessity for the
rule of law.
TMLW: How should the Canadian government
respond
to this?
IS:
In my opinion the Canadian government should very
vociferously, in all national and international fora, reject the
extraterritorial nature of Helms-Burton.
It
should
uphold
Canadian
sovereignty
and
act
in
keeping
with
its
vote
at
the
United
Nations
condemning
the
illegal
U.S.
economic,
financial
and commercial blockade of Cuba. It is important to bear in mind
that since 1992 members of the UN General Assembly have
repeatedly and overwhelmingly opposed the U.S. blockade of Cuba,
and particularly its extraterritorial features, representing one
resounding victory after another for Cuba. I think that the
Canadian government and Canadian parliamentarians should not
allow Canada's policies towards Cuba or its relations with Cuba
to be targeted and undermined with this latest aggressive move by
the U.S. In fact they should stand up for Canadian sovereignty as
well as Cuba's and the sovereignty and right to
self-determination of all those potentially affected.
TMLW: Do you have any concluding thoughts?
IS: In conclusion, I would say that this
is a
very dangerous turn in relations. The Trump administration is
obviously engaging in a policy of vindictiveness. They want to
eliminate the Cuban Revolution which has always been a concrete example
of self-determination in Latin America. The
situation is at a very critical point and we must ensure that we
do not allow this to stand.
I would also like to say that despite all of this, there
is significant confidence in the Canada-Cuba solidarity movement
that the Cuban people can and will overcome any challenges that
they face including this latest provocation by the United States,
this latest act of aggression, this latest escalation of the U.S.
economic war against Cuba. I think also that the Cuban people can
be confident, that they can count on the ongoing undiminished
support and friendship of Canadians. That support and friendship
is rooted in the overwhelming respect of Canadians for Cuba's
rights, independence and self-determination and a profound
admiration for what the Cuban people have accomplished despite
facing the unceasing aggression of the United States. This
respect and admiration have forged unbreakable ties of friendship
between the people of Canada and Cuba.
The Canadian government
should recognize this by taking a resolute, unequivocal political
stand against this latest vindictive act of the U.S. and by using
all available legal means at home and internationally to combat
its effects. It is an act of aggression not just against the
Cuban people but against the Canadian people, against the
Canadian nation and the fundamental principle of sovereignty.
This article was published in
Volume 49 Number
14 - April 20, 2019
Article Link:
Interview
- Isaac Saney, Co-Chair and Spokesperson,
Canadian Network on Cuba
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|