Foreign affairs minister, Senator Kamina Johnson Smith, has rejected criticism from former prime minister, PJ Patterson, about Jamaica’s abstention from a vote on a United Nations resolution condemning the United States embargo against Cuba.
The vote marked a shift in policy by Jamaica as historically the island has voted “yes” in favour of ending the United States economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba for over 30 years since the annual UN resolution began.
In a rebuke of the decision by Jamaica, Patterson said “it was a day of shame for the land of Marcus Garvey, and a stain on the record of a nation which, before we had even raised our own flag, closed its ports to trade with apartheid South Africa.”
But Minister Johnson Smith hit back in remarks sent to the media.
Minister Johnson Smith says Mr. Patterson has made important contributions to Jamaica’s foreign policy and his service deserves recognition and respect, both of which she had always accorded him.
The minister says it is, therefore, disappointing that his recent article concerning Jamaica’s abstention on the United Nations resolution on the embargo against Cuba lacks factual basis and instead relies heavily on emotions, mischaracterisations, and conclusions that do not withstand scrutiny.
Minister Johnson Smith says firstly, Jamaica has not changed its opposition to the embargo and remains concerned about its impact on the Cuban people and value the country’s longstanding friendship and cooperation with its Caribbean neighbours.
Johnson Smith says what has changed is Jamaica’s assessment of whether continued support for an annual resolution addressing only one dimension of Cuba’s circumstances represents the most constructive approach.
“Mr. Patterson’s suggestion that an abstention amounts to support for the embargo, or silence in the face of Cuban suffering, is simply incorrect,” says Minister Johnson Smith.
“The UN system offers three voting approaches which are quite distinct and not inter-changeable – For, Against and Abstention. Jamaica did not vote against the resolution. We abstained. We also were not silent. We formally explained our position immediately after the vote. Our Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN expressly acknowledged the contribution of external economic restrictions to Cuba’s difficulties, while also recognising the domestic economic and structural challenges affecting the country. Jamaica called for reduced restrictions, constructive engagement and Cuba’s greater integration into the international economic system”, Minister Johnson Smith stated.
The minister gave further context to Jamaica’s decision to abstain.
“It is true that Jamaica could have voted in favour while expressing reservations. But an explanation of vote does not alter the position conveyed by the vote itself. Our decision reflected an assessment of the resolution in its entirety. Furthermore, within minutes of the vote, I also addressed the post-Cabinet press briefing in Kingston, not only advising of the vote, but explaining, referencing even the relevant motion in the Parliament and sharing verbatim, the explanation of vote delivered by Jamaica’s Ambassador in the General Assembly. In what world can this be honestly described as silence?”, the minister commented.
Johnson Smith says for more than three decades, the General Assembly has called for an end to the embargo, yet it remains in place and the circumstances facing the Cuban people have deteriorated.
The minister argued that surely it is reasonable to consider whether a broader approach might better serve the objective she presumes is shared by all which is – an improvement in the lives of the Cuban people.
Minister Johnson Smith says principle should guide policy, not prevent us from examining its effectiveness.
The minister says perhaps more troubling from a national perspective, is Mr. Patterson’s assertion that Jamaica’s abstention violated Parliament’s unanimous resolution and constituted a parliamentary offence warranting ministerial resignation.
“This is a serious allegation, particularly from a former prime minister familiar with our constitutional system. The motion brought before Parliament expressed concern for the Cuban people and supported constructive engagement, reduced economic restrictions and Cuba’s greater integration into the international economic system. These positions are consistent with Jamaica’s explanation of vote. Crucially, the motion did not direct the government to vote in favour of the UN resolution, nor did it purport to bind the Executive to a particular voting position. In any event, Parliament’s important responsibility to debate policy and hold ministers accountable must not be confused with the Executive’s constitutional responsibility for conducting policy which must include its foreign relations. Certainly it could not be suggested that the Parliament or the Executive could be bound by the fact that opposition parliamentarians called for an end to the blockade in their contributions to the debate”, the minister explained.
Minister Johnson Smith reiterated that no parliamentary instruction defied, and no credible basis for the extraordinary allegation of a parliamentary offence exists.
The minister noted that Mr. Patterson also invoked Jamaica’s historic assertion of independence in establishing relations with Cuba, while insinuating that the present decision resulted from external pressure or the pursuit of favour but offered no evidence for that suggestion.
“Indeed, the government’s posture was articulated well before the vote. Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness addressed the need for a more considered approach to Cuba’s circumstances at the CARICOM Heads of Government meeting earlier this year, and Jamaica’s National Policy Statement at the United Nations General Assembly in September reflected the same thinking. Both were promoted in traditional and social media.
“With all due respect to Mr Patterson, sovereignty cannot mean that a decision is independent only when it accords with the preferences of former leaders. The suggestion that his view may also be shared by former Prime Minister Golding would therefore not persuade me otherwise. Each government has the responsibility to exercise its own judgment in the national interest”, Minister Johnson Smith commented as she pushed back against criticism from the former prime minister.
Minister Johnson Smith concluded that the Cuban people deserve more than an annually repeated expression of solidarity that has not achieved its central objective.
The minister says the Cuban people deserve constructive international engagement directed towards meaningful improvements in their lives.
