In a message dated 04/07/2001 12:50:07 GMT Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:


> << Hammjatta,
> I am not taking  this one with any seriousness,how can you seriously discuss
> the Cuban economic and social problems without a single word about the over
> 30 years  brutal and unjust US economic blockade of this tine little country
> with almost no resources ,perhaps except "Sugarcanes".This is not serious.
> For Freedom
> Saiks >>


Saiks,

For your information, i do not approve of the unilaterally imposed US
economic blockade against Cuba. As a free trade liberal, i only endorse
restrictions on free trade or economic blockades under extreme circumstances
and where it is determined that it would undermine the free market. Cuba,
despite all our objections to the repugnant dictatorship of Castro and our
sympathies with the democratic forces, doesn't qualify for trade restrictions
and or economic blockades of the scale the US is unilaterally imposing on the
country. For this reason, i'm opposed to the unilaterally imposed US economic
blockades. However, if the US had engaged in what i call direct targeted
sanctions against the political dictatorship of Cuba, i would have no
troubles in supporting such a move. Similar principles apply to Iraq and any
other political dictatorship.

My own conviction is that free trade is far better equipped to end
dictatorships than economic blockades or trade restrictions. The reason for
this is simple. When you impose economic blockades on a country in the name
of freedom and democracy, you only end up with the reverse of your ultimate
aim: a closed society that eventually resents the 'outsiders' who imposed the
economic blockades and effectively  strengthening the dictatorship. The
experience of Iraq and Cuba are telling. On the other hand, if free trade had
its way, such societies will open and the taste of freedom will make it a
demand that the dictatorship will be in short supply of. There are more
reasons why Adam Smith glorified the 'invisible hand' associated with
capitalism. This is one of such reasons.

To be sure, the unilaterally imposed US economic blockades has negatively
impacted on Cuba's overall economic performance. That is regrettable and i'm
all for a review of the economic blockade with the ultimate intention of
coming with a policy position that merely targets directly the political
dictatorship and let free trade have its way with ordinary people. I
wouldn't, however, factor the US economic blockade too much given its
unilateral nature and the fact that many countries have defied this US action
and freely trading with Cuba. US allies or satellite States like Canada, an
economic giant of her own, have notably defied the US on this blockade and
freely trade with Cuba despite the island's repugnant political dictatorship.

Let me end this by posing a question: will you ever support any calls for
sanctions to be imposed on the Gambia in the event that Jammeh steals the
next elections? Lets face it: the Cuban exiles in the US who have strongly
and successfully lobbied US gov'ts to maintain/strengthen the economic
blockade against the Castro dictatorship appeal to similar to principles and
convictions as those of us seeking the end of the Jammeh dictatorship. If you
end up supporting some form of sanctions against the Gambia, are you telling
me that Castro should have a different treatment from the likes of Jammeh?
Why? Because Castro claims to be socialist and the rest apparently are not?

All the best,

Hamjatta Kanteh

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------