Former Prime Minister P J Patterson has made important contributions to Jamaica’s foreign policy. His service deserves recognition and respect, both of which he knows I always accord…
Former Prime Minister P J Patterson has made important contributions to Jamaica’s foreign policy. His service deserves recognition and respect, both of which he knows I always accord him. 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. Firstly, Jamaica has not changed its opposition to the embargo.
We remain concerned about its impact on the Cuban people and value our long-standing friendship and co-operation with their country. What has changed is our assessment of whether continued support for an annual resolution addressing only one dimension of Cuba’s circumstances represents the most constructive approach. Patterson’s suggestion that an abstention amounts to support for the embargo, or silence in the face of Cuban suffering, is simply incorrect.
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. 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 the vote delivered by Jamaica’s ambassador in the General Assembly. In what world can this be honestly described as silence?
This is a source-linked briefing. Read the original report from Jamaica Observer .