¿Debe más que lo que vale su casa?

¿Está enfrentando una crisis financiera?

¿Ha perdido su empleo?

¿Está considerando irse a embargo?

¡Una VENTA CORTA (short sale) puede ser mucho mejor que un embargo! Por medio de una VENTA CORTA le ayudaremos a negociar con el banco para que ellos le permitan vender su casa por menos de lo que usted debe; ¡algunas veces por mucho menos! Esta opción es mucho más beneficial para su crédito y evita mucha de la tensión emocional para usted y su familia.

Vea este video de dos minutos para aprender más sobre VENTAS CORTAS:

¡No tiene que irse a embargo! Contáctenos hoy para encontrar la salida.

Tere Cardenas

TereCardenas@yahoo.com (escriba en español o inglés)

(303) 718-3632

www.BargainHomeHunter.net (sitio en inglés)

www.CasasDeGanga.com (sitio en español)

Publicado en EL MUNDO – Autor: Juan Emilio Maíllo – Fecha: martes 24/11/2009 

Los daños a cubrir rondan los 165.000 euros 

Madrid.- La aseguradora Zurich se enfrenta este martes al trago de que un juez acuda a sus oficinas a embargar parte de sus bienes debido a que la compañía no ve procedente atender el pago de la cobertura de una póliza. 

La víctima del caso es un ciudadano irlandés que adquirió dos viviendas en Benalmádena (Málaga) en el año 2005. En pleno boom inmobiliario, este inversor optó por cubrir la eventualidad de cualquier problema y suscribió un contrato con ACC Seguros (filial de Zurich) para asegurar las cantidades entregadas a cuenta.

La constructora Cogicoldos se comprometió a finalizar las viviendas en un plazo de 30 meses, pasado el cual la obra no se concluyó y la compañía, según fuentes jurídicas, declaró concurso de acreedores.

El pasado 7 de agosto el demandante reclamó a la inmobiliaria la devolución de los 126.980,05 euros que había entregado a cuenta, pero no recibió respuesta, por lo cual se dirigió a Zurich como aseguradora de dicha aportación.

Ante la negativa de la compañía de seguros a hacerse cargo de la póliza, el juzgado de primera instancia número 9 de Madrid ha ordenado, según un auto notificado el pasado 4 de noviembre, proceder al embargo de bienes a la compañía en el caso de que hoy, cuando el agente judicial acuda a las oficinas de Zurich, la empresa se niegue a pagar la cantidad adeudada al cliente.

A la reclamación realizada por el citado inversor irlandés hay que sumar otros 38.094,01 euros en concepto de intereses y costas del proceso.

El abogado del demandante, Javier Saavedra, explicó a este diario que las cantidades a atender por parte de Zurich pueden ser mucho mayores, ya que su cliente no es el único afectado, sino que hay otra veintenta de ciudadanos irlandeses atrapados por la misma situación.

Estos, sin embargo, han presentado su demanda en un juzgado de Fuengirola. De este modo, si los daños a cubrir para un inversor con dos viviendas rondan los 165.000 euros, para los 20 pisos de la promoción la cifra a abonar rondaría los 1,6 millones.

La compañía alega, por el contrario, que no habrá embargo alguno y que lo que sucederá hoy será que recibirán la notificación de la demanda, tras lo cual la compañía facilitará un número de cuenta que garantice la cuantía y estudiará los mecanismos para su defensa en este caso.

Qualche giorno fa si è discussa nel Committee on Foreign Affairs della Camera dei Rappresentanti degli Stati Uniti la possibilità di eliminare il divieto che impedisce ai cittadini statunitensi, con la recente esclusione dei cubano- americani, di viaggiare all’isola caraibica, proibizione che data dalla sanzione del The Cuban Assets Control Regulations, nel 8 luglio 1963. In seguito, questa norma sancita dal Governo statunitense venne rinforzata dalla Cuban Democracy Act (detta “Torricelli Law”) e dal Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act (detto “Helms-Burton Act”) di 1996.

Sotto il titolo di “Is it Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?”, la discussione contò con la partecipazione di Howard L. Berman (D-CA), presidente della Commissione; il generale in pensione Barry R. McCaffrey; l’ambasciatore ed ex capo dell’U.S. Interests Section all’Avana, James Cason; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), d’origine cubana e esponente repubblicana di maggior rango in questa Commissione Esteri; la giornalista indipendente d’origine cubana Miriam Leiva; Berta Antunez, sorella del prigioniero politico Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, attivista pro-democrazia a Cuba, e altri invitati di prestigio.

Dopo la distensione provocata dall’eliminazione per il presidente Obama di alcune restrizioni riguardanti i viaggi all’isola dei cubani-americani, imposte durante il governo di George W. Bush, si è sentita la necessità per alcuni esponenti, soprattutto democratici, di estendere a tutti i cittadini americani la libertà di viaggiare a Cuba. Anche politici rilevanti come Richard Lugar (R-Ind), il repubblicano di maggior rango nel senato, si sono mostrati favorevoli a un rilassamento delle sanzioni imposte al governo cubano.

Invece, altri esponenti dei settori repubblicani, tradizionalmente più conservatori anche nel modo di concepire la politica verso il regime castrista, si oppongono a questi progetti di apertura: non solo non vogliono togliere le restrizioni commerciali, ma neanche sono favorevoli a che i suoi compatrioti possano viaggiare a Cuba. La presenza di una potente lobby di politici cubani-americani, radicati quasi tutti nel sud della Florida, rafforza la radicalità delle posizioni conservatrice. Lincoln e Mario Diaz-Balart, la stessa Ros-Lehtinen, deputati repubblicani alla Camera, il democrata Albio Sires (NJ-13), tutti d’origine cubana (si includono altri politici, come lo stesso John McCain, R‐Ariz), hanno ricevuto durante questi ultimi sette anni degli elettori di origine cubana della Florida più di $10 milioni per campagne a sostegno dell’embargo.

Ma l’embargo è una politica corretta? Si può in una democrazia addirittura impedire ai cittadini del proprio Paese di visitare un altro, questa volta a solo 90 miglia? Nonostante gli americani possono viaggiare persino in Iran (definito da Howard L. Berman in quest’incontro come il vero “pericolo” per gli USA), in Cina e nella Corea del Nord, che pericoli sconosciuti possono aspettarli in Cuba, quando quest’arriverà entro la fine dell’anno ai 2, 35 milioni di turisti, provenienti nella maggior parte del Canada, Regno Unito, Italia e Spagna? Sulle restrizioni commerciali, non è però ignoto che gli Stati Uniti sono il quinto socio commerciale di Cuba, con un volume d’intercambio di circa 500 milioni annui di vendite di prodotti alimentari.

Sarebbe però ingenuo pensare che l’arrivo di visitatori americani condurrà alla democratizzazione di Cuba: i turisti non porteranno nelle loro valigie, come pensa Yoani Sanchez, la libertà di espressione e di riunione, ne saranno gli ambasciatori del cambio. E’ senz’altro chiederli troppo. E’ già da anni, dopo l’apertura al turismo internazionale come risposta al crollo del socialismo reale e l’ingente crisi economica dei ’90 in Cuba, che visitano l’arcipelago turisti appunto di tutto il mondo. E gli effetti non sono meno tristi che devastanti, perlomeno sul piano morale: un’intera industria del sesso è cresciuta insieme con quella degli alberghi di lusso nei “cayos”, coccolata per il modello marxista di liberalizzazione della donna negli anni ’60 e ’70 e l’introduzione estesa dell’aborto, entrambe conquiste “rivoluzionarie”.

Il prezzo della libertà non è mai troppo alto. Gli americani hanno diritto di scegliere Cuba come destino turistico e i cubani devono assumersi la propria responsabilità. Alcuni però un giorno magari ringrazieranno quelli che, al sud della Florida, si impegnarono in ostacolare la libertà di altri, nonostante si sbagliassero.

One step forward, one step back… The negotiations between the US and Cuba for an opening in some areas have been jumpy since Obama came to power. Because of the inflexibility of Cuban regime and because of internal movements within the US political life. These hard negotiations show that peaceful relations are not so easy and that people have interests in a status quo in both camps.

A report from the nonpartisan group Public Campaign underline these dark relations. It shows that about 400 politicians, members of Congress, candidates have received money from supporters of the US embargo against Cuba for their campaigns. Almost 11 million dollars since 2004. So that they block efforts to weaken sanctions against the island.

Most of the recipients of the cash are Republicans (9,9 million dollars) but Democrats also received about 850,000 dollars, especially the 53 who signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposing any change to U.S.-Cuba policy. The top 5 recipients are three Florida’s Cuban American Republican members of Congress, presidential nominee John McCain and Cuban American Democrat Robert Menendez, from New Jersey.

But for the supporters of the embargo, no problem. “I will not apologize for the Cuban-American community practicing its constitutional, democratic right to support candidates who believe in freedom and democracy for the Cuban people over business and tourism interests”, the director of the U.S.-Cuba PAC Mauricio Claver-Carone said. Though polls suggest that most Americans believe the policy towards Cuba should be lifted. And the Cubans in all this?

As we know, the world has begun to change. This can be founded in progress of technolology useful to facilitate us to carry out daily activities in our daily activities. In the economic sector, is very useful to carry out economic activity. With high technology and other equipment, they can control other countries to do what they wants. Including conduct embargo and punish other countries in the economic or political sectors. This embargo is for countries that have a super-power influence in the world in economics and politics sector. They have power because they have technologies and power of politic and economic.

What is Embargo.

Trade embargo is the prohibition for a country of one country to another country because they do not approve agreements with developed countries. Embargo regarded as a diplomatic steps that are imposed in the business. Embargo is likes economic sanctions generally regarded as the law of trade barriers, and should not be regarded as a blockade, which is often regarded as an act of war.

The Types of Sanctions and Embargoes.

When a sanction or embargo is set, the British followed the procedures in place and keep it in their own law. In the procedure described about how the procedure works, how traders must comply with the rules, and what punishment if they break the rules.

Here’s the types of Sanctions and Emabrgoes :

• Embargoes on exporting or supplying arms, and associated technical assistance, training and financing
• A ban on exporting equipment that might be used for internal repression
• Asset freezes on individuals in government, government bodies and associated companies, or terrorist groups and individuals associated with those groups
• travel bans on named individuals
• bans on imports of raw materials or goods from the sanctions target

These embargoes and sanctions previously been felt by the India and Pakistan on September’22 2001, which George W. Bush issued a regulation on October 1, 2001 to apply sanctions to remove this waiver denial policy for export and import of commodities and also delete the entities of India and Pakistan in the list of BXA.

Señor juez, pase usted más alante

y que entren todos esos.

No le dé a usted ansia,

no le dé a usted miedo…

Si venís anteayer a apenarla,

os tumbo a la puerta. ¡Pero ya se ha muerto!

Embargar, embargar los avíos,

que aquí no hay dinero;

Lo he gastao en comida pa ella

y en boticas que no le sirvieron;

y eso que me quea,

porque no me dio tiempo a venderlo,

ya me está sobrando,

ya me está jediendo.

Embargar ese sacho de pico,

y esas hoces clavás en el suelo,

y esa segureja

y ese cacho de liendro…

¡Herramientas que no quede ni una!

¿ya pa qué las quiero?

Si tuvia que ganarlo pa ella,

¡cualquiera me quitaba a mí eso!

Pero ya no quiero ver ese saco,

ni esas hoces clavás en el suelo,

ni esa segureja,

ni ese cacho de liendro…

¡Pero a ver, señor juez: cuidaíto,

si alguno de esos osa tocarle a esa cama

ondi ella se ha muerto;

la camita donde yo la he querío

cuando ambos estábamos güenos,

la camita donde yo la he cuidao,

la camita donde estuvo su cuerpo

cuatro meses vivo

y una noche muerto!…

señor juez: que ninguno sea osao

de tocarle a esa cama ni un pelo,

porque aquí lo jinco

delante de usted mesmo.

Lleváoslo todo,

todo, menos eso,

que esas mantas tienen sudor de su cuerpo…

¡y me güelen, me güelen  a ella

cada vez que las güelo!

José María Gabriel y Galán (1870-1905)

• U.S. Citizen Sentenced for Illegal Exports of Controlled Aircraft Parts to Iran.  Last week the Department of Justice announced that the “director of Monarch Aviation Pte, Ltd. (“Monarch”), a Singapore company that imported and exported military and commercial aircraft components for more than 20 years, was sentenced … in federal court in Brooklyn to 46 months’ incarceration for conspiring to violate the U.S. trade embargo by exporting controlled aircraft components to Iran. Wang-Woodford was also ordered to forfeit $500,000 to the United States Treasury Department.”  The news release is available, here.  The UK husband half of this scheme is still a fugitive and is believed to be hiding out in Singapore or some other place in Southeast Asia.   Over what items you ask led to the arrest of this husband and wife team?  Aircraft shields, shears, “o” rings, and switch assemblies.  Americans can trade freely and without most restrictions with over 94% of the countries in the world.  One has little sympathy for people that set out to do evade these rules.

• African Nation Getting Close to Arms Embargo and Sanctions? In response to a military takeover of the Republic of Guinea government that has resulted in the death of civilians and human rights abuses, the State Department, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, issued a Web Notice recently advising exporters “that although there is no current U.S. or UN arms embargo on Guinea, the final decision on license applications for the export of U.S. Munitions List (USML) items to Guinea received from this date or currently in the review process may be delayed as the situation develops.”  Read the complete Web Notice, here.  In related news, the African Union announced this weekend announced economic sanctions.

• Export Law Blog:  ”Ex-Treasury Advisor Claims U.S. Jurisdiction over Entire Planet”.  Over at the Export Law Blog, well, go read for yourself.  Its a good read.  What side are you on?  Once you read Burns’s post the following comment may make more sense; under UN Security Council Resolution 1737 (March 2007), the Security Council called on “all States and international financial institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, and concessional loans, to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes.”  The UN could look into this matter; at least for consistencies sake since the Asian Clearing Union is an international financial institution.  And, alas, the U.S. may not “rule” the world, but we sure have a great deal of influence over what countries, companies, and international financial institutions do with our goods and our greenbacks.

• House Democrats Rally Around U.S. Travel Ban on Cuba.  According to the Miami Herald, more than 50 House Democrats are urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to leave the U.S. embargo on Cuba alone.  ”Any legislation that would seek to ease or lift sanctions . . . would send a devastating message to Cuba’s opposition movement and legitimize an ailing dictatorship,” states the letter signed by Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kendrick Meek, Alcee Hastings and 50 others.”  Read the Miami Herald story, here.  The supporters of easing the travel restrictions for U.S. citizens say they have enough votes to securing passage in the House.  We’ll see.  One day, one hopes, we will learn why people in Congress and K Street insist on supporting a state sponsor of terror just 90 miles from our shores. For now, kudos to the brave 50 or so Democrats who stand for freedom.

• Rep. Connie Mack Keeps Pressing on Listing Venezuela as State Sponsor of Terrorism.   In letter to the editor of the of the Fort Myers News-Press, Florida Representative Connie Mack outlines why Venezuela should be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.  ”United States law clearly states that a state sponsor of terrorism is one that repeatedly provides support to acts of international terrorism. Hugo Chavez has done so and is a clear threat to our hemisphere. That’s why the United States must add Venezuela to the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and why we must stand with the people of Venezuela as they fight for freedom from Chavez’s iron fist,” Mack states in the letter.  Mack and other Members of Congress have pressed for this designation for some time now and they are correct,  it is long overdue.  A possible middle ground option could be to designate Venezuela, and likely Ecuador, as a terror sanctuary.

• New Mosque in Nicaragua Fuels Rumors About Iranian Regime Meddling.  The Wall Street Journal reports today on a new mosque set to open in Managua, Nicaragua – a country with 300 or so Muslims.  According to the Journal, “[t]he geopolitical chatter surrounding the gold-domed mosque, which opened in September after more than a year of construction, continues. “Did Iran put up the money? That’s the question everyone asks,” says Ismat Khatib, a native Nicaraguan lawyer and businessman who is of Palestinian descent. One Managua-based diplomat says it is believed Iran subsidized it.”  For years I have been hearing from colleagues and friends close to Nicaraguan opposition leaders that Iran has been funneling money and “diplomats” to Managua for projects such as an “embassy” building that never seems to come to completion.  Expect to hear more about Iranian influence, eh, meddling is more like it,  in the Western Hemisphere for years to come.  For now though, the Managua Mosque is just that, a mosque. Also, something that the WSJ does not mention – it is not just the Iranian regime money flows in to the region that should concern as there are other groups and countries that are out to destabilize the Americas. Read the Wall Street Journal article, here.

Como parte de su plan para estimular el mercado de bienes raíces en los EE. UU. y para ayudar a resolver los retos que enfrenta la economía, el Congreso ha autorizado lo siguiente:

• Extender el crédito de impuestos de $8,000 para primeros compradores hasta el 30 de abril de 2010. El comprador no debe haber poseído una casa durante los 3 años previos a la compra de su nueva casa.
• Otorgar un crédito de hasta $6,500 para gente que actualmente posee una casa y compra otra casa entre el 7 de noviembre de 2009 y el 30 de abril de 2010. El comprador debe haber vivido por cinco años consecutivos durante los últimos ocho años en su casa actual, y puede conservar su casa actual como una segunda casa o una propiedad para rentarla.

Para aprovechar esta oportunidad, contacte a Tere Cardenas hoy a TereCardenas@yahoo.com o visite su sitio www.CasasDeGanga.com

Obama + Nobel = embargo a Cuba

La ONU, en la reunión del miércoles, condenó el embargo de EE.UU. a Cuba. Ya va 14 años que lo hace, cada vez con los votos de más países: 185 países votaron a favor de la condena, y solo 3 en contra: EE.UU., Israel y … Palau (?!)

Vea la noticia en: http://elespectador.com/noticias/elmundo/articulo86759-onu-pleno-condena-el-embargo-cuba

U.S. Embargo on Cuba Again Finds Scant Support at U.N.

NY TIMES QUOTE:

Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said the resolution ignored the oppression that she called the real cause of Cubans’ suffering.

“The Cuban government’s airtight restrictions on internationally recognized social, political and economic freedoms are the main source of deprivation and the primary obstacle to development in Cuba,” she said.

  Give me a break! The entire argument for the Cuban embargo has long past, on one hand the Obama administration talks about ending “Cold War Era” practices.  Yet we maintain an embargo which has proved useless, unnecessary, and completely hypocritical. China, our largest trading partner violates economic freedoms, political freedoms, etc. However, we trade with them like drunk sailors. China is much more an economic and military threat then Cuba will ever be.  This is nothing more then a good-old-fashion pissing contest.     

People say Cubans are hot-tempered but Machetera doesn’t believe it.  Not when she sees the current Cuban foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez, in action.

Following the recent U.N. vote, where the entire world (save the two countries totally on the U.S. dole – Israel and Palau – and not counting the other two abstentions, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands) condemned the United States of America again for its ongoing genocidal blockade against Cuba, and where the completely miscast U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice (Susan, Vermont is calling!) weighed in with a nasty speech against Cuba lifted lock stock and barrel from the rhetoric of the Bush administration, Rodriguez spoke to the Associated Press:

Rodriguez told AP he was “a little bit surprised” by the vehemence of Rice’s initial comments, saying he knew and respected her and held her in high esteem.

“She is an articulate person, a decent and well-meaning person, like president Obama,” he said. “And we respect both of them for that.”

This just proves that Machetera could never have been a diplomat.

Rodriguez’s speech was a splendid counterpoint to that given by Rice, exposing the hollowness behind every single point made by the U.S. in its own pitiful and isolated defense.  But there is one point that Rice ought to have been especially embarrassed to make:

“…my delegation regrets that the delegation from Cuba continues to label inappropriately and incorrectly U.S. trade restrictions on Cuba as an act of genocide. Such an egregious misuse of the term diminishes the real suffering of victims of genocide elsewhere in the world.”

Let’s review:

Wikipedia says: The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948 as General Assembly Resolution 260. The Convention came into effect in January 1951. It defines genocide in legal terms, and is the culmination of years of campaigning by lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term by reference to the Simele massacre, the Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide^[2]. All participating countries are advised to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and in peacetime. The number of states that have ratified the convention is currently 140.

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Pay careful attention to (c). Cuba didn’t write that, nor did Machetera.  It’s U.N. policy, going on 60 years now.

Now let’s return to the concrete examples provided by Mr. Rodriguez:

Alexis García Iribar was born in Cuba, in the province of Guantánamo. He suffered from a congenital cardiopathy known as persistent arterial duct. At the age of 6 and after successive deferrals and hemodynamic complications, he had to be submitted to an open-heart surgery on March 9, 2009, because the government of the United States prevents the US companies NUMED, AGA and Boston Scientific from selling to Cuba the ‘amplatzer’ and ‘embolization coil’ devices required to perform a catheterization that will spare children from this type of surgery. I could mention another 12 cases of children between the ages of 5 months and 13 years who have had to undergo a similar procedure in the course of the last one and a half years –two of them underwent surgery after last January 20.

Cuban children suffering from lymphoblastic leukemia whose bodies reject traditional medicines can not be treated with the American product “Elspar” (Erwinia L-asparaginase), created specially to treat intolerance. Consequently, the life expectancy of these children is reduced and their suffering increases. The U.S. government forbids Merck & Co. to supply this medication to Cuba.

And this from Cuba’s foreign ministry:

In 2008, because of additional costs coming from the obstacles to transactions with the United States, ALIMPORT suffered losses of 154.9 million dollars.  With those resources and in the same American  market, at those year’s average prices, Cuba could have bought 339,000 tons of wheat, or 615,000 tons of corn, or 126,760 tons of chicken for the tables of the more than 11 million Cubans included in the “Canasta Básica” (basic shopping-basket) programme.

Let’s also remember that quietly, Obama’s OFAC has continued the policies of his predecessor, busily hunting down and fining companies such as Lactalis USA, the dairy producer, for having the temerity to engage in electronic wire transfers to Cuba, when they knew full well that when it comes to Cuba, they were supposed to ask papi for permission first, and then haul their cash in a suitcase.

Lactalis paid OFAC $20,959.38 in February, of 2009, to settle the allegations uncovered by OFAC sleuths, that it had made “six unlicensed wire transfer payments in which Cuba or Cuban nationals had an interest.”

The embargo/blockade, whatever you want to call it, does meet the definition established by Article II (c).

Which brings us to the final point.  Sigmund Freud postulated that denial was a defense mechanism (Wikipedia again), deployed when “a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may use:

• simple denial – deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
• minimisation – admit the fact but deny its seriousness, or
• projection – admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility

It’s no secret that the former occupant of the White House had fallen off the wagon and was in serious need of an AA program.  What is Rice and Obama’s excuse?

Presto dinero. La UNICA garantía que acepto son propiedades (pisos, terrenos, parking, naves, etc).
El importe máximo que presto por operación es 100.000 €

NEW YORK – E’ la diciottesima volta che accade. A favore dell’embargo solo Israele, Usa e Isole Palau. Tutti gli altri paesi del pianeta sono contrari al ‘bloqueo’ imposto dagli Stati Uniti sull’isola.

“L’embargo è una vergognosa e sistematica violazione dei diritti umani”. Durissime le parole del ministro degli Esteri cubano Bruno Rodriguez che ha commentato la 18 votazione dell’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite che ha chiesto agli Usa di porre fine al blocco economico nei confronti di Cuba in vigore dal 1962.

Anche in questa circostanza, come avviene ormai per la diciottesima volta, l’Assemblea ha espresso 187 voti a favore e solo Usa, Israele, e Isole Palau hanno votato contro. La decisione dell’Assemblea, però, non è vincolante.

Sembra che nonostante i buoni propositi e gli ultimi tentativi di avvicinamento i rapporti fra i due stati non siamo mai cambiati. Nemmeno l’elezione di Obama alla presidenza Usa ha cambiato le carte in tavola. Imbarazzante la difesa dell’ambasciatrice statunitense presso le Nazioni Unite Susan Rice, che sostiene come l’embargo non sia responsabile della povertà di Cuba e punta il dito contro il governo dell’isola che ritiene responsabile della crisi economica che da decenni colpisce il Paese.

CRI: A Xinhua hírügynökség jelentése szerint az ENSZ-közgyűlés 64. ülésszaka október 28-án abszolút többséggel úgy határozott, hogy az Egyesült Államokat a Kuba elleni embargó mielőbbi feloldására szólítja fel. Immáron 19. éve fogad el az ENSZ-közgyűlés ilyen jellegű határozatot.
Aznap az ENSZ-közgyűlés arról szavazott, hogy az Egyesült Államoknak meg kell-e szüntetnie a Kuba elleni gazdasági, kereskedelmi és pénzügyi blokádot. 192 tagállama közül 187 ország támogatta a határozatot.
www.kubainfo.net