Gail Alexan­der

Se­nior Po­lit­i­cal Re­porter

For­mer Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress MP and min­is­ter Vas­ant Bharath has con­demned Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar’s Gov­ern­ment for vot­ing against a Unit­ed Na­tions res­o­lu­tion call­ing for an end to the Unit­ed States’ eco­nom­ic em­bar­go against Cu­ba.

Bharath said the vote marked a break with Trinidad and To­ba­go’s 30-year record of sup­port­ing an end to the em­bar­go.

“Per­sad-Bisses­sar’s Gov­ern­ment has com­mit­ted an act of po­lit­i­cal and diplo­mat­ic ca­pit­u­la­tion by aban­don­ing Trinidad and To­ba­go’s 30-year-long sup­port for end­ing the US eco­nom­ic em­bar­go against Cu­ba. It’s a de­ci­sion that de­serves the strongest con­dem­na­tion and rais­es grave ques­tions about the moral prin­ci­ples guid­ing our coun­try’s for­eign pol­i­cy,” he said yes­ter­day.

He de­scribed the vote as “a shame­ful demon­stra­tion of po­lit­i­cal sub­servience at the ex­pense of prin­ci­ple, hu­man­i­ty and na­tion­al in­de­pen­dence.”

Bharath said Cubans had en­dured eco­nom­ic hard­ship for over 60 years, com­pound­ed by re­stric­tions on trade, fi­nance and ac­cess to es­sen­tial sup­plies.

“Chil­dren, pen­sion­ers, pa­tients and work­ing fam­i­lies have borne the con­se­quences of pro­longed geopo­lit­i­cal con­fronta­tion. They are now be­ing sub­ject­ed to pow­er out­ages, food and med­i­cine short­ages. They’re be­ing stran­gled in­to sub­mis­sion, and Trinidad and To­ba­go is now com­plic­it in this eco­nom­ic war­fare that will see con­tin­ued suf­fer­ing and loss of life,” he said.

Bharath said on Oc­to­ber 28, de­spite in­tense US lob­by­ing, 130 coun­tries vot­ed in favour of the UN res­o­lu­tion, while 17 op­posed it.

“Trinidad and To­ba­go dis­grace­ful­ly joined the mi­nor­i­ty op­pos­ing the mea­sure, break­ing with its pre­vi­ous vot­ing record,” he said.

He ac­cused Per­sad-Bisses­sar of putting the pur­suit of favour with Wash­ing­ton ahead of in­de­pen­dent diplo­mat­ic judg­ment and the suf­fer­ing of Cubans.

“By vot­ing in favour of keep­ing the em­bar­go, Per­sad-Bisses­sar has sig­nalled that the pur­suit of favour with Wash­ing­ton, gen­u­flect­ing and fawn­ing over her new ‘colo­nial mas­ters’, takes prece­dence over in­de­pen­dent diplo­mat­ic judg­ment and the con­tin­ued suf­fer­ing of mil­lions of peo­ple,” he said.

Bharath al­so re­called that Per­sad-Bisses­sar, while in Op­po­si­tion, had praised Fi­del Cas­tro as a Caribbean hero for his an­ti-Amer­i­can stance.

“Her Gov­ern­ment’s ac­tions now stand in stark con­trast to that ear­li­er rhetoric and to Trinidad and To­ba­go’s es­tab­lished sup­port for end­ing the em­bar­go,” he said.

“What changed? Have our prin­ci­ples sud­den­ly be­come ne­go­tiable? Do we have any? Or has the de­sire to ap­pease a pow­er­ful neigh­bour tak­en prece­dence over our na­tion­al dig­ni­ty and in­de­pen­dence?

“Trinidad and To­ba­go is a sov­er­eign re­pub­lic, not a diplo­mat­ic ap­pendage of Wash­ing­ton. The US has every right to pur­sue its for­eign pol­i­cy. Trinidad and To­ba­go has the same right to de­ter­mine its own.”

Bharath said the strength of T&T’s re­la­tion­ship with Wash­ing­ton should be mea­sured by the ben­e­fits it de­liv­ers to the pop­u­la­tion, “not by how fre­quent­ly our gov­ern­ment votes along­side the Amer­i­can del­e­ga­tion.”

He said the vote de­served “un­equiv­o­cal con­dem­na­tion” for its hu­man­i­tar­i­an im­pli­ca­tions, de­par­ture from diplo­mat­ic prece­dent and the dam­age it risked caus­ing to the coun­try’s cred­i­bil­i­ty as an in­de­pen­dent Caribbean na­tion.

“Un­der this regime, we con­tin­ue to trade our con­vic­tions and con­science for con­ve­nience. Our for­eign pol­i­cy should re­flect our na­tion­al in­ter­ests, our re­gion­al re­spon­si­bil­i­ties and our in­de­pen­dent judg­ment—not the whims and fan­cies of a more pow­er­ful na­tion. Our sov­er­eign­ty is not hers to bar­gain away for po­lit­i­cal favour, and our na­tion­al prin­ci­ples must nev­er be­come the price of pleas­ing Wash­ing­ton.”

Bharath said Cu­ba’s own pol­i­cy fail­ures did not ab­solve the US of re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for the ef­fects of its sanc­tions or jus­ti­fy in­dif­fer­ence to the suf­fer­ing of Cubans.