Second Obstacle...

For those who dismiss the UN as the arbiter for a solution, then I see very little hope otherwise. This has been made clear for almost half a century.

For those who wish for a pragmatic (and perhaps immediate) solution continue reading.

As mentioned below, the US embargo towards Cuba, called the "economic, commercial and financial embargo" by the UN general assembly, is an obstacle to the possibility of the UN as a venue to negotiations between the US and Cuba.

Now, this is a serious setback if one is familiar with the background of the embargo.

There is a widespread opposition to the US embargo towards Cuba in the US. If one reads the mainstream literature on foreign relations concerning US and Cuba, one will notice that the majority of researchers are opposed to the policy or are baffled by it. At another time I shall go over some of the quotes of the leading academics concerning US policy towards Cuba. But, for now let me quote one well known mainstream historian of US and Cuba relations, Timothy Naftali, current director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. He appeared on C-Span's Washington Journal program on April 17, 2006 (for the anniversary of the Bay of Pigs) and made some points about the embargo. Naftali has also written extensively on the US/Cuba conflict with one book called "One Hell of a Gamble": Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy, 1958-1964 (with Aleksandr Fursenko) and other articles.

While he is not a expert on foreign policy, but a historian, concerning the US embargo towards Cuba, Naftali said that it is a "cold war relic", and that "it's self-defeating to wall off Cuba", and that the embargo is a "political, strategic mistake."

Now, that's the mainstream. And that's also along the line of what most Americans think too. According to the latest Gallup poll "more than two-thirds support re-establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba."[1]

You may be asking yourself that if there is so much opposition to the embargo, then why is it still there?

Florida politics.

And, that's a huge obstacle.

[1]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200612/POL20061219a.html

First Obstacle...

So, following this direction, I think that the US and Cuba can achieve a pragmatic solution to their conflict through the UN. The UN specifically says that it the security council that shall give legitimacy to any sanctions directed at any nation. It is important to note that the US embargo towards Cuba has been condemned by the UN general assembly for 15 consecutive years (since 1992 with the introduction of the Cuban Democracy Act) for violating this basic principle.

Many accuse that the UN is biased with respect to Cuba, and point to the way they vote continuously against the US embargo towardsd Cuba. In reality, there is no bias here. If one is seriously concerned about why the UN general assembly has voted the same for fifteen years, one need just look at the resolution. The members of the UN make it very clear that the US embargo towards Cuba violates the UN Charter. They have made this argument year after year.

According to this year's press release of the resolution "of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba", it states that the ambassador from Mexico "expressed his delegation’s rejection of embargoes and other unilateral or coercive measures that did not correspond with the principles of the Charter. Mexico believed that such measures could be set out or imposed only by the Security Council of the General Assembly."[1]

"India, one of the largest democracies in the world, had consistently opposed any unilateral measures by countries, which impinged on the sovereignty of another country, and he shared the view of the Assembly that sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality."[1]

[1]http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc.htm