multilateralism – dwkcommentaries

Cuban Speech to Friends of U.N. Charter

On February 25, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Parrilla gave the following speech at a meeting in New York City of the Group of Friends of the U.N. Charter.[1]

“In the current international juncture, it is necessary to reflect on the United Nations Organization that we have built and which celebrates this year its eightieth anniversary.

The aspiration to maintain peace, the purpose that guided the creation of the organization, remains a challenge. Tensions are rising, threats to international security are increasing and there are attempts to impose new forms of domination.”

“While trillions of dollars continue to be squandered in the arms race, fewer and fewer resources are allocated to the hundreds of millions of people who are victims of hunger and poverty, making it increasingly difficult to close the growing gap in wealth distribution.”

“Multilateralism is progressively weakening and the role of international organizations is being ignored. They are being threatened with conditioning and funding cuts.

“The current US administration has shown its contempt for the multilateral system and its institutions. Its shameful withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the World Health Organization, the Human Rights Council and the suspension of funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are recent examples of this behavior.”

“By supporting the Palestinian genocide against the Palestinian people, the US government confirms its support to the philosophy of war and the doctrine of dispossession. Its plans to occupy Gaza and displace its population represent an escalation of ethnic cleansing, in flagrant violation of International Law.”

“The inaction of the Security Council in the face of these events damages the credibility of the UN.”

“I would like to propose that the Group of Friends of the Charter intervene at the upcoming Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to denounce the flagrant violations of International Humanitarian Law committed by the Occupying Power in the occupied Palestinian territories.”

“With the plans of domination announced by the new administration towards our region, the United States intends to launch a new imperialist offensive against the peoples of Our America, anchored in the archaic and interventionist Monroe Doctrine.”

“As part of this policy, we reject the decision, announced on January 20, to include Cuba again in the arbitrary and unilateral List of State Sponsor of Terrorism, a few days after the previous administration decided otherwise. Such a measure confirms the discredit of the aforementioned list; ignores the consistent demand of international voices, including this Group of Friends, and seeks to further tighten the impacts of the blockade against Cuba.”

“We invite the members of the Group of Friends to continue denouncing the new and dangerous imperialist attack against our region.”

“I would like to conclude by acknowledging Venezuela whose effective coordination has guided our works since its foundation. We also welcome the possibility of incorporating new members to the Group.”

“We support the work plan outlined for this year.”

“Cuba will continue to defend, firmly and consistently, the Charter of the United Nations and International Law, and will remain committed to the principles of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.”

The Group of Friends[2]

The Group “was launched on 06 July 2021, in New York [City], and, to date, it is composed of 18 Member States: Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mali, Nicaragua, the State of Palestine, the Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Angola and Cambodia were founding members of the Group of Friends.”

The Group members “agree that the Charter of the United Nations is both a milestone and a true act of faith that for the past 78 years has filled the entire international community with hope on the best of humanity and brings it together to ensure the common well-being of present and future generations. They consider that the purposes and principles enshrined therein are indispensable for preserving and promoting, among others, international peace and security, the rule of law, economic development and social progress, and all human rights for all, in an ever increasingly connected world.”

The members also ‘consider that multilateralism, which is at the core of the Charter, is currently under an unprecedented attack, which, in turn, threatens global peace and security. Nowadays, the world is seeing a growing resort to unilateralism, marked by isolationist and arbitrary actions, including the imposition of unilateral coercive measures or the withdrawal from landmark agreements and multilateral institutions, as well as by attempts to undermine critical efforts to tackle common and global challenges.”

“In addition, they believe that the international community is currently struggling with both the continued attempts to disown the diversity of our world and the very basic principles of international relations, and with the systematic violations to the norms of international law and the tenets of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular to the detriment of developing countries, by certain powers that seem to claim a non-existent “exceptionalism” that disregards, for instance, the principle of sovereign equality of States, in an attempt to establish a so-called “rules-based order” with norms that remain unknown and have not been necessarily agreed upon by States, as is the case with the set of norms and principles contained in the UN Charter, and which are the basis for modern-day international law.”

The Group has adopted the following set of its objectives:

“1. The Group of Friends, as part of the common quest of its Member States for making further progress towards achieving full respect for international law, shall strive to preserve, promote and defend the prevalence and validity of the UN Charter, which, in the current international juncture, has a renewed and even more important value and relevance.”

“2. The Group of Friends shall strive to ensure full, permanent and effective – and not selectively or conveniently – fulfillment of obligations under the UN Charter and compliance with its letter and spirit, conscious of the fact that this is the legal instrument with the greatest scope and legitimacy in the world, which has prevented and shall continue to prevent humankind from suffering once again the horrors and untold sorrow of the scourge of war.”

“3. The Group of Friends shall serve as a platform for, among others, promoting the prevalence of legality over force and for discussing, articulating possible means and coordinating joint initiatives for fostering respect for the principles of sovereignty, equality of States, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, peaceful settlement of disputes, and refraining from the use or threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, as enshrined in the UN Charter, as well as for the values of dialogue, tolerance and solidarity, mindful of the fact that these are all at the core of international relations and necessary for peaceful coexistence among nations.”

Cuban Reactions to the Cuban Foreign Minister’s Speech [3]

Diario de Cuba reported the following negative comments about the above speech from other Cubans:

Maritza Camero: “Creativity is non-existent and it is not worthy that resistance should be only from the people. Leaders should be the first examples of resistanceand if they look closely they will realize that they are not.”
Mara Piedras Velarde: ” It is easy to ask for resistance when you live with all the comforts” and Jorge Vega Ramos added: “What nerve! While they kill the majority of the people in life, they talk about resistance , and they live better than the millionaires.”
Luis Hernández Batista: ” Hypocrites are what they are. With their bellies full, they ask for resistance from a people in total miserydue to their ineptitude.”
Elizabeth Godínez: “From his comfort zone, not knowing what 23-hour blackouts are like and having all his needs covered, anyone can speak up and stand firm. In this country, people don’t lead by example, that’s why we are where we are. Oh, and when it’s his week in a hotel in Varadero, he (Bruno) will go there like Juan who kills himself, maintaining his selfless firmness.”
Fara Martha González Fernández: “What an absurd phrase, creative resistance! What would be the creative part? Seeing how we fade away in a more beautiful way?Or how do we make art with the hunger and misery we are experiencing? They are specialists in creating absurd concepts and empty discourses.”
Gonzalez Monyk: “I agree with being sovereign, but we have not had social justice for a long time, and resisting is becoming more difficult because many families do not have even the most basic things. Instead of talking about resistance, they should talk about changes, listening to the youngest, accepting ideas, changes to really get out of this dark and gloomy hole where we are, and do not talk to me about a blockade that has always been there and we have never been as bad as we are now.”
Jose Martinez: “What right is he talking about and what social justice, if they have just opened dollar stores that the people neither have nor are they paid for. The people resist because they have no right to protest against the blackouts of more than 20 hours and the misery and hunger in Cuba.

=============================

[1] Statement by Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, Minister of Foreign Affairs at Group of Friends of the Charter of the United Nations, Feb. 25, 2025.

[2] About the Group of Friends of the Charter of the United Nations.

[3]The regime hammers at the UN with ‘creative reistance’ and Cubans are outraged: ‘they should talk about changes,’ Diario de Cuba (Feb. 26, 2025).

President Trump Condemns Cuba at the United Nations

On September 19, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly.[1] Most media attention has focused on his bellicose remarks about North Korea and Iran. But he also condemned Cuba and Venezuela. Here the focus is on the general theses he advanced, his comments about Cuba and reactions to the speech.

Trump’s Speech

His fundamental thesis was the U.S.’ “renewing this fundamental principle of sovereignty” and “our success depends on a coalition of strong, independent nations that embrace their sovereignty, to promote security, prosperity and peace for themselves and for the world.” (Emphasis added.)

In short, the world needed strong, effective sovereign nations. As he stated, the U.S. does “not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is the foundation for cooperation and success.” (Emphasis added.)

“Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect. Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God. (Emphasis added.)

President Trump’s subsidiary premise was the assertion that “in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.”

On the other hand, this was not a universal action item for every sovereign nation. As he stated, “we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially. Nations of the world must take a greater role in promoting secure and prosperous societies in their own regions.” (Emphasis added.)

“That is why in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has stood against the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba and embraced the enduring dream of the Cuban people to live in freedom. My administration recently announced that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.” (Emphasis added.)

President Trump then went on at length about Venezuela’s problems, at least some of which he also sees in Cuba. In his words, “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems.” (Emphasis added.)

Reactions to the Speech[2]

Trump’s comments on sovereignty were criticized by the Foreign Minister of Sweden, Margot Wallstrom: “This was a bombastic, nationalist speech. . . . This was a speech at the wrong time to the wrong audience.”

Vali R. Nasr, the Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies., said, “It looks like we will respect the sovereignty of countries we like, whether they are dictatorships or democracies, but we will not respect the sovereignty of countries we don’t like.” Nasr added, “His definition of sovereignty comes from a very narrow domestic prism.”

This speech generally did not get good reviews. For example, the editorial from the Guardian in London concluded that Trump “brought little clarity as to the wider strategy he contemplates. Threats and grandstanding are just bluster, not policy. Crises require a deftness the Trump administration has failed to demonstrate. He wants allies to back him, but seems oblivious that his lack of personal credibility is an obstacle to international cooperation. An “America First” approach runs counter to the UN’s multilateralism. His credo could be summed up by his claim that nations acting in their own self-interest create a more stable world. The question is what rules would states operate under? Not the UN’s, Trump’s response appeared to suggest. The president may want to speak of “principled realism”, but he is a reckless and dangerous leader, sitting, alas, in a most powerful position.”

These thoughts were echoed by a Guardian reporter, Julian Borger, who said the speech was full of “fulminations” of fear, especially his threat to “completely destroy North Korea,” which came just minutes after the U.N. Secretary General had told those at the Assembly and implicitly Trump himself, “Fiery talk can lead to fatal misunderstandings.” More generally, “Trump punched yawning holes in his own would-be doctrine, singling out enemies, expressing horror at their treatment of their people and threatening interference to the point of annihilation. What was left . . . was a sense of incoherence and a capricious menace hanging in the air.”

The New York Times’ editorial said, “In all this fury, before a world body whose main purpose is the peaceful resolution of disputes, there was hardly a hint of compromise or interest in negotiations.” “Mr. Trump’s dark tone and focus seemed a significant deviation [from previous U.S. presidents], not least his relentlessly bellicose approach to North Korea.” On the other hand, “Mr. Trump’s largely benign comments about the United Nations were encouraging.”

The Washington Post editorial also criticized “Mr. Trump’s schoolboy taunts of ‘Rocket Man,’ his sobriquet for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, and his threats, if the United States is ‘forced to defend itself or its allies . . . to totally destroy North Korea.’ The leader of a powerful nation makes himself sound simultaneously weak and bellicose with such bluster.” This editorial also said “there was something discordant in using the United Nations podium to proclaim the virtue, essentially, of national selfishness over international cooperation and multilateral organization. No doubt Presidents Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia will welcome this aspect of Mr. Trump’s address. They, too, have insisted on the unassailable ‘sovereignty’ of their formidable states and demanded that others not lecture them about values such as democracy and human rights, which they fear and abhor.” The editorial concluded, “Mr. Trump seemed to repudiate his own advocacy for human dignity and freedom when he said that “we do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions or even systems of government” — as if democracy should be optional under the U.N. Charter.”

Surprisingly the Post’s respected foreign affairs columnist, David Ignatius, had a generally favorable reaction to the speech. He said, “the most surprising thing about President Trump’s address to the [U.N.] . . . was how conventional it was. He supported human rights and democracy; he opposed rogue regimes; he espoused a global community of strong, sovereign nations.”

The editorial by the Wall Street Journal generally approved of the speech, but thought that Trump gave too narrow a definition to “national interest” by failure to include respect for the rights of the nation’s own people. Trump’s concept of sovereignty “also leaves authoritarians too much room to claim dominant [regional] spheres of influence,” such as Chinese and Russian leaders in the South China Sea and Ukraine. In short, Trump needs to learn “there is no substitute for U.S. leadership on behalf of American values and interests if he wants to build a more peaceful world.”

The speech’s negative comments about Cuba were rejected by that country’s Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, who said that Trump “lacks the moral authority to criticize Cuba, a small and solidary country with extensive international cooperation.” Rodriguez also said in an interview with Telesur that the speech “was an unusual, aggressive, dominating, blatantly imperialist speech. Sovereignty [for Trump] means sovereignty for the United States, enslavement for all others; [it] completely ignores the concept of sovereign equality that inspires the [U.N.].” These comments were echoed by Cuba’s delegation to a Bilateral Commission meeting with the U.S.; the delegation said it protested “the disrespectful, unacceptable and meddling statements” by Trump at the U.N. Rodriguez also condemned the President’s aggressive comments against Venezuela and expressed Cuba’s solidarity with that country and its leaders. Granma, however, did publish the full text of the Trump speech.

Conclusion

There is much to criticize in the President’s speech. Foremost was his threat that the U.S. might have ”no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” (Emphasis added)

His perceived need for “strong sovereign nations” totally ignores all the destruction and pain inflicted on the world by such nations throughout history. This emphasis also ignores the multilateral efforts, especially after World War II, to develop multilateral, international treaties and institutions, including the United Nations, to protect the world against the excesses of strong sovereign nations. Yes, like all human institutions, the U.N. is not perfect and can and should be improved. Although Trump had some kind words for the U.N. and the Marshall Plan after World War II, he said the U.S. could no longer enter into “one-sided alliances or agreements.”

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, in her September 20 speech to the General Assembly implicitly gave the proper retort to the main thesis of Trump’s speech, that strong sovereign states were the appropriate building blocks for the contemporary world.[3] She said the following:

“The only way for us to respond to this vast array of challenges is to come together and defend the international order that we have worked so hard to create and the values by which we stand. For it is the fundamental values that we share, values of fairness, justice and human rights, that have created the common cause between nations to act together in our shared interest and form the multilateral system. And it is this rules-based system which we have developed, including the institutions, the international frameworks of free and fair trade, agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and laws and conventions like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which enables the global cooperation through which we can protect those values”
“If this system we have created is found no longer to be capable of meeting the challenges of our time then there will be a crisis of faith in multilateralism and global cooperation that will damage the interests of all our peoples. So those of us who hold true to our shared values, who hold true to that desire to defend the rules and high standards that have shaped and protected the world we live in, need to strive harder than ever to show that institutions like this United Nations can work for the countries that form them and for the people who we represent.”
“This means reforming our United Nations and the wider international system so it can prove its worth in helping us to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. And it means ensuring that those who flout the rules and spirit of our international system are held to account, that nations honor their responsibilities and play their part in upholding and renewing a rules-based international order that can deliver prosperity and security for us all.”

Trump’s comments on Cuba were a reprise of his June 2017 speech in Miami, Florida with severe criticism of Cuba that was enthusiastically received by the many older Cuban-Americans in the audience.[4] Both speeches, however, lacked nuance and failed to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution, especially in health and education. It also is difficult to understand the basis for Trump’s assertion that the Cuban government was “destabilizing” or that it was “thoroughly corrupt.”

Both speeches also ignored the fact that Trump in June was only proposing to change two aspects of President Obama’s normalization policies: (a) banning U.S. persons from doing business with Cuban entities owned or controlled by the Cuban military or secret services and (b) banning U.S. citizens from going to Cuba on individual person-to-person travel, the latter of which has been subjected to criticism in this blog.[5]

The U.N. speech also failed to acknowledge that simultaneously and incongruously in Washington, D.C. the U.S. and Cuba were holding the sixth session of their Bilateral Commission that was established in the Obama Administration as a means to discuss the many unresolved issues that had accumulated in the nearly 60 years of strained relations; this session will be discussed in a subsequent post.

President Trump’s U.N. speech boasted about the U.S. announcing “that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.” This presumably refers to the U.S. embargo (blockade) of Cuba, which no longer serves any legitimate purpose for the U.S. and which, therefore, should be unilaterally terminated by the U.S. Moreover, the embargo soon will be the subject of a General Assembly resolution that again will condemn that U.S. policy and again undoubtedly will be overwhelming adopted.[6]

========================================

[1] White House, Remarks by President Trump to the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (Sept. 19, 2017); Landler, Trump Offers a Selective View of Sovereignty in U.N. Speech, N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2017); Jaffe & DeYoung, In Trump’s U.N. speech, emphasis on sovereignty echoes his domestic agenda, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2017).

[2] Assoc. Press, Reaction to Trump’s UN General Assembly Speech, N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2017); Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump at the UN: bluster and belligerence, Guardian (Sept. 19, 2017); Borger, A blunt, fearful rant: Trump’s UN speech left presidential norms in the dust, Guardian (Sept. 19, 2017); Editorial, Warmongers and Peacemakers at the U.N., N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2017); Editorial, Trump undermines his own advocacy for human dignity, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2017); Ignatius, The most surprising thing about Trump’s U.N. speech, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2017); Editorial, Trump Shock at Turtle Bay, W.S.J. (Sept. 20, 2017); Cuban Foreign Minister Condemns Trump’s Aggressive Address at UN, CubaDebate (Sept. 19, 2017); Cuban Foreign Minister in Telesur interview condemns Trump’s aggressive speech at UN, CubaDebate (Sept. 19, 2017); Reuters, Cuba Calls Trump’s U.N. Address ‘Unacceptable and Meddling,’ N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2017); Statement by President Trump to the seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly, Granma (Sept. 20, 2017).

[3] Theresa May’s speech to the UN General Assembly 2017 (Sept, 20, 2017).

[4] President Trump Announces Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies, dwkcommentaries.com (June 19, 2017).

[5] Posts to dwkcommentaries,com: President Trump Announces Reversal of Some Cuba Normalization Policies (June 19, 2017); U.S. Reactions to Trump Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies (June 21, 2017); Cuban Reactions to Trump Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies (June 22, 2017); This Blogger’s Reactions to Trump Reversal of Some U.S.-Cuba Normalization Policies (June 23, 2017). Other posts have criticised the proposed ban on individual person-to-person travel to Cuba, E.g., Cuban Entrepreneurs Issue Policy Recommendations to Trump Administration (July 19, 2017).

[6] Last year’s U.N. General Assembly resolution against the embargo is discussed in an earlier post. Other posts about the embargo are listed in the “U.S. Embargo of Cuba” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA .