A rather extraordinary event has taken place this week in Mexico City where Cuban officials and U.S. energy executives were meeting at the Hotel Maria Isabel Sheraton, owned by Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. The meetings were disrupted and had to be moved to a Mexican-owned hotel this past Saturday when the Hotel Maria Isabel abrubtly evicted all 16 members of an official Cuban trade delegation after one night, withholding the balance of their three day deposit in the process. It was reported that the Cubans suddenly found themselves out on the street, surrounded by their bags. The episode is rapidly escalating into a major international incident.
One might imagine that some sort of inappropriate conduct by the Cubans had led to this extraordinary turn of events, but no such conduct has been alleged or even suggested. Rather, according to Kirby Jones, president of the US-Cuba Trade Association, the U.S. government pressured the hotel owner to expel the Cubans, claiming that the company was in violation of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. Starwood officials confirmed that the U.S. Treasury Department had requested the expulsion, and a spokeswoman for the US embassy in Mexico was quoted as saying that “US law prohibits US persons and entities from providing services to Cuban national persons or entities, and the Sheraton, as a subsidiary of a US company, is bound by US law.”
It is not surprising that the Bush administration, never one to be bothered by the laws of other nations, would attempt to exert pressure on U.S. companies doing business in other countries when it suits their agenda. Unfortunately for Sheraton and the Bush administration, the expulsion of the Cuban officials appears to violate Mexico’s local and national laws prohibiting discrimination. Mexico secretary of foreign affairs Luis Ernesto Derbez, observed that the Helms-Burton law “does not exist” in Mexico, “and should not be applied, in our nation,” Echoeing similar sentiments, Mexican foreign minister, Luis Ernesto Derbez, says the idea that a United States law is being enforced on Mexican soil is troubling. “There does not exist and neither should there exist the extraterritorial application of this law in our nation,” he said. Mexican authorities are investigating and exploring sanctions against the hotel ranging from fines to closure. The Cubans have also been notified that they can file for damages in Mexican courts if adequate grounds can be demonstrated. Mexico City Mayor Alejandro Encinas has independently threatened to have the hotel shut down if local prosecutors determine that local anti-discrimination laws were broken. Adding to the questionable legality of the U.S. government demand and Starwood’s compliance, the Mexican Congress, in 1996, enacted a law forbidding companies here to comply with the U.S. embargo of Cuba.
Cuba is also outraged. An editorial in the state-run newspaper, Granma, equated the expulsion with “petty meanness” and represented “an outrage” against Mexican sovereignty. “The tentacles of the blockade and the United States’ criminal economic war against Cuba tend to extend themselves to every corner of the planet, including to the detriment of the sovereignty and laws of other states,” the editorial said.
There seems to be no dispute of the involvement of the U.S. government in this embarrassing and almost certainly illegal incident. The New York Times reports that “On Friday, the United States Treasury Department contacted the company that owns the Sheraton and warned them that they were violating federal laws against trading with Cuba by allowing the meeting to take place in their hotel.” According to the Times, “The hotel told the Cuban representatives to leave, and sent their room deposits to the Treasury Department.”
While the Bush administration’s coziness with, and largesse towards, the U.S. energy industry is well documented, the coziness evidently chills when it comes to dealing with Castro’s Cuba, which is trying to entice American oil companies to join Chinese, Canadian, Indian and Norwegian companies into oil exploration deals in Cuban waters. The Cubans were urging the U.S. companies to lobby against the U.S. embargo of Cuba so they could invest in the Cuban energy sector. Substantial oil reserves were discovered in Cuban waters two years ago, and Cuba has announced plans to double drilling capacity and exploration for oil in Cuban waters. The U.S. embargo currently prohibits American companies from competing for the lucrative contracts. The meetings in Mexico City were attended by Texas executives representing Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy Corporation. the Louisiana Department of Economic Development was also represented, as were Texas port authorities.
The fact that these events occured at a conference dealing with oil hardly seems a coincidence. U.S.-Cuba Trade Association President Jones maintains that he has arranged nine other meetings attended by Cuban officials in Mexico on different topics, including several held at a Westin Hotel in Cancun, also owned by Starwood, with no U.S. interference. “It is absolutely extraordinary,” says Jones, “that…the U.S. government on a Friday night should engage in efforts to kick 16 Cubans out of a hotel in Mexico, sitting and meeting with U.S. businessmen.” Jones mocked the broad interpretation of the law, arguing that “if you take this to its logical extreme, no Cuban can stay at any American hotel in the world and no Cuban can buy a McDonald´s hamburger anywhere.” He noted that, with the United States increasingly seeking energy sources close to home, it is ridiculous that U.S. oil companies be forbidden from competing with the Chinese, Europeans, Canadians and others in the sea off Cuba. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there could be 5 billion barrels of oil in the area plus large quantities of natural gas.
With President Bush advocating, in his State of the Union address, less dependence on Middle East oil, and with Venezuela, angered by alleged spying by U.S. diplomats, threatening to close U.S. oil refineries owned by Citgo, the U.S. unit of Venezuela’s state oil company, one has to wonder about the Bush administration’s provocative hostility toward the possibility of the opening of new oil markets 90 miles off U.S. shores.
Here’s a question: why isn’t the US Government taking similar action against the oil companies that employ the businessmen the Cuban delegation was meeting with? After all, aren’t they as much in violation as the Hotel Sheraton?
Oh wait, I forgot. You know President Cheney, you get out of jail free.
They may not have been in violation. Acknowledging the existence of Cubans, even speaking to them, is not illegal yet. It’s only when money changes hands…
But you can bet the calls to the hotel were in fact meant for the oil execs… and I can think of two possibilities here, since we KNOW shrub wants his friends to be able to get our oil out from under Castro.
One possibility is that shrub doesn’t want to get into a bidding war with PDVSA — Citgo could do the job, I think — and have Chavez decide that he should sell his oil elsewhere. (Bet the Chinese would be interested….) We import a million barrels a day from Venezuela, and a couple million more from other Latin countries… and that would cause severe distress if we lost it… possibly enough to topple a government.
The more likely read, given that the shrubberies aren’t inclined to think much beyond the “ours — TAKE” level, suggests to me that the administration is anticipating regime change in Cuba AND Venezuela before long and doesn’t want his friends in the oil companies to have money and machinery in harm’s way when it happens.
It’d be a shame if the publicity gets loud enough to cause the real powers-that-be to react: the hotel’s global clientele.
Protestors blocked the hotel entrance today (Reuters).
Thanks for the link. That story was not yet on line when I did my research for this diary. I think this is going to continue to escalate. The arrogance of the U.S. in maintaining that U.S. laws trump Mexico’s laws on Mexican soil is just incredible. There is an election campaign going on in Mexico, and opposition candidates will not let this die. I suspect that this incident is also going to cost American hotels dearly in terms of revenue in Mexico and elsewhere.
Just a colony run by his proxies to the imperialist King George that occaisionally gets to supply cheap labor to work as slaves to corporate executives and corporate agriculture.
Hmmm. Wonder how the next Mexican election will go?
I predict all the officials except the Cuban government will back down. The US Government is just too powerful. They have such an array of economic weapons and are so eager to use them, the international economy is so interdependent and dominated by the US, that no country can stand against them. We can damage any economy at any provincial level.
That is why the diplomatic outrage at the arrogance of our government is so muted. The citizens of the world cry out. Their governments protest with “concern”.
Unfortunately, sometimes I think the only thing that will take the US down a several notches is a boycott of US products by the citizens of the world, organized and propagated by individuals (is it too much to hope they target “red” companies?). As the US economy falters and world demand is unmet, there would be opportunities for others to step in.
I say unfortunately, because I would sink along with the rest of the US economy. But if that’s what it takes, world – do it now!
I don’t think it will happen, though. The mature citizens of the world encourage rogue nations with constructive engagement, usually not boycotts.
So, I guess we gotta wait for the Dem prez in Jan 2009.
That is already a reality. American companies are hurting abroad because more and more companies and individuals are boycotting all things American, especially in Europe.
One problem with my hypothesis is that we are more a service and systems economy than a consumer products economy. There are not as many American “things” to boycott as in decades past.
I’m sure you did not mean to smear any potential Democrat candidate with the notion that he or she would side with ‘leftist’ governments in Latin America who oppose US interests.
That’s not how you win elections in Amrika.
Correct, I did not.
I meant that a reasonable US president would ratchet down the international bullying we wouldn’t be having these type of discussions.
Neither reasonableness nor ratcheting down of bullying would be “pragmatic” for any candidate serious about getting elected to advocate, and anyone, regardless of furk, who did so would essentially be declaring himself or herself “unelectable.”
Such a president would not be a good fit culturally with the US voting class at this time.
A candidate who pledged to invade and occupy Mexico to protect Americans from smuggled in Muslims would have better chances.
I don’t think this would be an issue raised in great detail during a campaign. It’s a loser for either side, one of those issues that will lose a candidate more votes than they would gain, whether they are advocating a cooperative foreign policy or invading Mexico.
A Democrat would practice more international consensus in foreign policy. Their solid supporters would know this during the campaign, but would not demand the candidate raised the issue explicitly – nothing to gain by it.
avoid appearing to have any definite opinions on any issue, he will certainly appeal to the Democratic furk, however, in order to actually win, either with voters or the Diebold company, it is quite likely that this time around, he might be obliged to take a stand on something.
Of course it would need to be something very non-controversial, not any issue in which lives, American or otherwise, or generation of funds to large corporations, are at stake.
You can buyblue. . .www.buyblue.org..
Yes, I’ve given that link to some of my non-political- junkie friends who have liberal instincts.
I’m reading a book by Kim Stanley Robinson right now called The Wild Shore, which is a Science Fiction dystopia novel with this very theme. I read a mention of it someplace, so I know where it’s going, though I just started it. The idea in the novel is that the rest of the world blockades the US for several decades, until the US economy shrinks to approximately subsistence level. There is some memory of a war, and some unhappiness that a general didn’t launch a planetary nuclear strike sometime in the past, though the complainers in the novel are not old enough to remember pre-embargo times, and don’t really know what a nuclear strike would actually be. They seem to dislike the French as well, though they seem not to really know who they are. It’s got better prose than most Science Fiction stories.
I read a few by Kim Stanley Robinson, I really enjoyed them, partly because he writes about Los Angeles County (socal, really) like someone who lives here and gets around alot. He seems to know many of the tiny isolated roads I found on a bike trying to avoid traffic.
I don’t know if I read The Wild Shore, unless it’s the one about the woman councilperson trying to keep the last wild outcropping in future primitive Orange County from developers whose political methods would make Abramoff proud. She jams around on a mountain bike.
If you can find it – “A Short Sharp Shock” is beautiful. A dreamy story about a man and a woman who wake up with no memory in the shore break of a primitive island world – one island – around the equator. They meet societies, and are pursued for unknown reasons along the spine of he island.
No, I meant that a reasonable President would ratchet back the international bullying.
I remember when I was just starting to get interested in politics, I was aghast that President Carter, who I campaigned for, would dare to express a preference that Enrico Berlinguer (sp), the Communist mayor of a large Italian city and leader of his party, not win election as Italy’s prime minister.
I wish that were my worst complaint today.
meant to reply to dtfw.
new fumble bee
As you probably remember, the Helms-Burton Act was under fire and Clinton was NOT going to sign it into law, and then, wonder of wonders, CIA agent Jose Basulto sent his “Brothers to the Rescue” planes into Cuban airspace several times before they were shot down over disputed Cuban/International waters.
In the wake of the tidal wave of anti-Cuban sentiment, Helms-Burton was signed into law. Clearly, the law was passed with CIA help for the big business interests. But it’s a ridiculous law – always has been, as it reaches beyond America’s borders to punish foreign corporations who deal with Cuba.
My jaw dropped reading this. Just when I think that I can’t be startled by them any more, something like this story comes along. . .
“Petty meanness” pretty well sums them up.