Press Release from the Central Bank of Cuba
As is widely known, in late 2004, Cuba had to take measures to substitute the Cuban Convertible Peso for the dollar in monetary circulation, with the goal of frustrating the perfidious attempt by the United States government to prevent dollars in cash that had arrived in Cuba via completely legal channels from being utilized to pay for part of our imports of goods and services.
At the time, it was extensively explained how the U.S. government was bringing pressures to bear against the Swiss Bank UBS to prohibit it from carrying out its normal business with Cuba. That attempt was based exclusively on the terror being spread throughout the United States with its proclaimed policy of “you’re either with us or against us.”
As has occurred throughout all of these years, the actions of our enemies were defeated on that opportunity, as well: the dollar, the symbol of their imperial power, was humiliatingly expelled from Cuba; or commercial and financial relations continued to expand, and the credibility and respect for our country and its financial institutions are growing every day.
It should be added that based on that experience, our country’s far-sighted policy has been to substantially increase the use of other currencies in our international transactions, given that we are persuaded that the irresponsible materialistic U.S. policy, which has led it to fall into unsustainable fiscal and commercial deficits and placed its own currency in crisis, and the tendency for its gradual depreciation is now irreversible.
An example of how times have changed for the dollar is that at this moment, a simple statement by the president of the Central Bank of China regarding the composition of its reserves by currency type is enough to make the dollar depreciate, as occurred very recently.
It should not be forgotten that China today possesses the largest amount of monetary reserves on the planet (more than $1 billion dollars), four times more than those of the United States; hence, any comment by the Central Bank of China that is interpreted as an intention to reduce the amount of dollars in its reserves can have a negative impact on that currency.
To the great discomfort of the United States, the fate of its currency now depends – among other factors – on what is said in China. That is the fragility of the dollar at this time.
In the specific case of the Swill bank UBS and subsequently of another bank from that same country, Credit Suisse, an unfortunate subordination to the orders of the empire took place, providing an irrefutable example of how the United States imposes its laws in an extraterritorial manner, and decides who can or cannot do business with the institutions of other nations that are supposed to be free and sovereign.
In the case of UBS, coercion and blackmail may also be involved, given that an EFE news agency report dated Oct. 29, 2005 indicated that certain branches of that bank participated in the United States “food for oil” program imposed on Iraq, and according to investigations, at least five Swiss businesses paid the Iraqi government some $1 million each to win contracts in that country within that program. This was revealed to U.S. authorities, who were conducting the aforementioned investigations, and extraordinarily weakened their ability to act independently of the United States, even when they see themselves obliged to sacrifice their professional ethics, even by lying.
It should be added that, according international media reports, UBS was a generous donor to the election campaigns of Bush and his rival, John Kerry, which confirms its desire to win the complacence of the U.S. government no matter which party is in power.
More recently, the Swiss newspaper Sonntagszeitung published an article last Sunday in which it was justly noted that in Cuba’s case, there are no international sanctions but that nevertheless, the two aforementioned Swiss banks had broken off their business with our country.
This article said, among other things:
“In the case of Cuba, which has no international sanctions and is not in conflict with the organizations of the United Nations, the Cubans are boycotted by one country alone: the United States of America.”
Questioned by the press, on November 14, both banks offered the following explanation to the Swiss newspaper Le Temps:
“UBS is explaining its decision due to the high costs of monitoring respect for and conformity with the regulations for dealing with clients from the communist island. For Credit Suisse, ‘Cuba is one of the sensitive countries,’ the bank’s spokesman said, without expanding on what that means.”
In the same article, there are statements by Carlo Lombardini, business lawyer for the Geneva Bar Association, in which he says “Both Swiss banks are influenced by the U.S. viewpoint of the world. The cessation of transactions with Cuba is one of the consequences.”
Finally, we must ask: Who decides which countries are “sensitive” or not? And within what parameters is that classification based?
Or could it be that nobody knows that 50% of all the money-laundering in the world is done in the United States? Shouldn’t this be taken into account by the aforementioned banks in considering that the United States is a truly “sensitive” country with respect to acting in accordance with the laws of its financial system?
The answer is very simple: the actions of these two Swiss banks have nothing to do with respect for the law or precautions in their banking transactions. They are simply acts of submission to the United States, which they do not dare to admit.
Fortunately, there are few institutions like UBS or Credit Suisse that humiliatingly subordinate themselves to the United States, and there is a growing number of agencies and countries that are not disposed to blindly allying themselves with an empire whose repeated failures in the last few weeks are just the tip of the iceberg of its irreversible decadence.
(Translated by Granma International)
At the time, it was extensively explained how the U.S. government was bringing pressures to bear against the Swiss Bank UBS to prohibit it from carrying out its normal business with Cuba. That attempt was based exclusively on the terror being spread throughout the United States with its proclaimed policy of “you’re either with us or against us.”
As has occurred throughout all of these years, the actions of our enemies were defeated on that opportunity, as well: the dollar, the symbol of their imperial power, was humiliatingly expelled from Cuba; or commercial and financial relations continued to expand, and the credibility and respect for our country and its financial institutions are growing every day.
It should be added that based on that experience, our country’s far-sighted policy has been to substantially increase the use of other currencies in our international transactions, given that we are persuaded that the irresponsible materialistic U.S. policy, which has led it to fall into unsustainable fiscal and commercial deficits and placed its own currency in crisis, and the tendency for its gradual depreciation is now irreversible.
An example of how times have changed for the dollar is that at this moment, a simple statement by the president of the Central Bank of China regarding the composition of its reserves by currency type is enough to make the dollar depreciate, as occurred very recently.
It should not be forgotten that China today possesses the largest amount of monetary reserves on the planet (more than $1 billion dollars), four times more than those of the United States; hence, any comment by the Central Bank of China that is interpreted as an intention to reduce the amount of dollars in its reserves can have a negative impact on that currency.
To the great discomfort of the United States, the fate of its currency now depends – among other factors – on what is said in China. That is the fragility of the dollar at this time.
In the specific case of the Swill bank UBS and subsequently of another bank from that same country, Credit Suisse, an unfortunate subordination to the orders of the empire took place, providing an irrefutable example of how the United States imposes its laws in an extraterritorial manner, and decides who can or cannot do business with the institutions of other nations that are supposed to be free and sovereign.
In the case of UBS, coercion and blackmail may also be involved, given that an EFE news agency report dated Oct. 29, 2005 indicated that certain branches of that bank participated in the United States “food for oil” program imposed on Iraq, and according to investigations, at least five Swiss businesses paid the Iraqi government some $1 million each to win contracts in that country within that program. This was revealed to U.S. authorities, who were conducting the aforementioned investigations, and extraordinarily weakened their ability to act independently of the United States, even when they see themselves obliged to sacrifice their professional ethics, even by lying.
It should be added that, according international media reports, UBS was a generous donor to the election campaigns of Bush and his rival, John Kerry, which confirms its desire to win the complacence of the U.S. government no matter which party is in power.
More recently, the Swiss newspaper Sonntagszeitung published an article last Sunday in which it was justly noted that in Cuba’s case, there are no international sanctions but that nevertheless, the two aforementioned Swiss banks had broken off their business with our country.
This article said, among other things:
“In the case of Cuba, which has no international sanctions and is not in conflict with the organizations of the United Nations, the Cubans are boycotted by one country alone: the United States of America.”
Questioned by the press, on November 14, both banks offered the following explanation to the Swiss newspaper Le Temps:
“UBS is explaining its decision due to the high costs of monitoring respect for and conformity with the regulations for dealing with clients from the communist island. For Credit Suisse, ‘Cuba is one of the sensitive countries,’ the bank’s spokesman said, without expanding on what that means.”
In the same article, there are statements by Carlo Lombardini, business lawyer for the Geneva Bar Association, in which he says “Both Swiss banks are influenced by the U.S. viewpoint of the world. The cessation of transactions with Cuba is one of the consequences.”
Finally, we must ask: Who decides which countries are “sensitive” or not? And within what parameters is that classification based?
Or could it be that nobody knows that 50% of all the money-laundering in the world is done in the United States? Shouldn’t this be taken into account by the aforementioned banks in considering that the United States is a truly “sensitive” country with respect to acting in accordance with the laws of its financial system?
The answer is very simple: the actions of these two Swiss banks have nothing to do with respect for the law or precautions in their banking transactions. They are simply acts of submission to the United States, which they do not dare to admit.
Fortunately, there are few institutions like UBS or Credit Suisse that humiliatingly subordinate themselves to the United States, and there is a growing number of agencies and countries that are not disposed to blindly allying themselves with an empire whose repeated failures in the last few weeks are just the tip of the iceberg of its irreversible decadence.
(Translated by Granma International)
posted by Alice at
Saturday, November 18, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home