Category: International Claims

A comprehensive U.S. embargo, was initially imposed on the regime because of these claims, but it has been weakened over the years. While  additional policy reasons have been added to U.S. law to justify economic sanctions against Cuba, the comprehensive embargo imposed by Eisenhower and Kennedy ceased to exist long ago. Meanwhile, conditions in Cuba have become more economically depressed due to the failed policies of the communist state. The new dominant policy goals for the embargo are improved human rights and democracy for the Cuban people.

The plight and suffering of the Cuban people has come to dominate the policy debate and become the primary justification for and against economic sanctions, while the property claims have mostly been forgotten. Under the premise of “support for the Cuban people,” many exceptions for commerce have been created. For example, there are charter flights carrying thousands of travelers from most major U.S. cities to Cuba on a regular basis. This travel is allowed based on various exceptions, including family reunification, academic study, religious and humanitarian reasons, among others. During the last few years, travel to Cuba has been authorized even for marketing, in the telecommunications and healthcare industries.

Travel to Cuba results in money being paid to the Cuban government; as Americans pay tribute fees to the regime every time they visit and spend money there, including a healthcare fee. In addition, Americans send millions of dollars each year in remittances to relatives in Cuba. As you can see, these seemingly minor exceptions to the “embargo” add up. Another consequential exception to U.S. sanctions includes the cash sale of agricultural commodities to the Government of Cuba by American farmers. American companies also sell medicine, medical supplies, and telecommunications equipment to Cuba. Estimations of this commerce are hard to come by but, according to some experts, it is likely to be valued between 1 and 2 billion dollars annually (possibly a gross underestimation).

To some degree, normal trade and commercial relations between the U.S. and Cuba have already been restored. Cuba sends cash to the U.S., mostly in exchange for agricultural commodities, and such transactions are financed by remittences and travel to Cuba; yet, the government of Cuba has not been forced to pay the certified claims of our fellow Americans. To add insult to injury, this trade and travel uses, and is enabled by, the stolen property of the American claimants, which is why terming this charge on all qualifying commerce and trade a “user fee,” is appropriate. The docks, ports, railroads, electrical grids, telephone grids, and many hotels, mines, farms, and businesses were all expropriated by the government of Cuba from Americans and are now being used to benefit the Cuban regime.  American farmers, travel agencies, and many other U.S. businesses also profit from this trade.

It is important to understand that this proposed fee is neither pro-commerce nor pro-trade with Cuba, nor is it designed to reduce or stop commerce, remittances or travel.  This fee simply completes the symbolic relationship between these trading partners. It is only fair that the trade, travel, and commerce that is using the confiscated properties should pay the uncompensated former owners for the use of these properties. Moreover, this fee will also finally begin to resolve and settle these claims and remove a long outstanding injustice committed against our fellow Americans. Also, by settling these claims, a major obstacle to progress in the relations between Cuba and the U.S. will be no more. Who knows? Resolving these claims may result in opportunities and progress in human rights and other issues in Cuba, as well.

These claims listed on the census represent money owed to U.S. taxpayers as a result of numerous types of offenses committed by Iraq, such as torts, expropriations, and a multitude of commercial claims, plus the long neglected claims of the injured sailors of the U.S.S. Stark ship.  Settling these claims involves a rather complex process of law, diplomacy, and, at times, raw politics. In the case of U.S. corporations, these claimants may have a legal obligation to their shareholders and a moral obligation to their employees to pursue compensation for their unresolved claims against Iraq.

According to a U.S. official, the government of Iraq has agreed to settle some outstanding Iraqi obligations to American victims of terror to a tune of $400 million, a mere fraction of the total U.S. claims currently pending against Iraq.  The principal reason that these American victims of terrorism were covered by a preliminary U.S.-Iraq agreement is because their attorneys made it clear to the U.S government that they should be compensated. These same lawyers also lobbied the Congress for over ten years and, eventually, successfully inserted language into appropriation bills and other legislation to bring long overdue closure and justice in these cases.

It is good that this agreement was made, but there remain large numbers of other individual and commercial claimants that also need resolution for their outstanding unresolved claims. For this reason, the Obama Administration must authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, at the U.S. Department of Justice, to commence an Iraq Claims Program and resolve these outstanding claims.

Customary international claims law and the International Claims Settlement Act of 1945, govern the resolutions of disputes like the ones at issue here. Under these laws, the Iraqi government is liable to U.S. citizens, including corporations and companies, for internationally recognized damages caused by the Hussein government.  This system relies on U.S. citizens asserting their rights and demanding to be compensated.  Up until now, it does not seem as if many commercial claimants have taken up the issue of their outstanding claims to resolve them.

And, due to the lapse of time since the injuries occurred, as well as business mergers and acquisitions that have occurred since the 1990s when the injuries occurred, presently, most companies may not even know they are owed money by the Iraqi government. In order for the complete normalization of trade relations between the U.S. and Iraq to take place, a claims settlement agreement must be signed by both governments which would be binding on all of their citizens. It is not known how far the current negotiations between the Iraqi government and the U.S. have already progressed. International settlement agreements talks may take months or maybe even years but, based on this article from last year, the talks with Iraq appear to be making forward progress.

Unlike the recently established Libya Claims Program being conducted ta the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, these U.S. claimants with claims against the government of Iraq are at a distinct disadvantage because they are not party to the pre-settlement process. This agreement between the U.s. and Iraqi governments will be a very important document as it will settle certain pending claims that each country has against the other. More importantly though, the agreement will surely contain a clause that relieves each country of further liability. This type of exemption from further liability clause is typically required in these types of agreements so as to entice the other country to sign, knowing that this will be the last time that country will be forced to pay claims.

At a time of such great economic suffering and high unemployment in the U.S., the U.S. government is morally obligated under international claims law, to exercise its discretionary authority and stand up for the rights of its own citizens.  Some of these claims are owed to companies that have received federal bailout money during the past few years. These monies could go a long way in putting Americans back to work, retiring national or corporate debt, or even modernizing factories.

Although it seems logical that the Administration would espouse the claims of all of its citizens, that assumption should not be taken for granted. Although the U.S. government has the jurisdiction to stand up for the rights of its own citizens, it has not always done so. U.S. espousal of these claims is less likely if the injured U.S. citizens have not demanded to be compensated or even asked for assistance.

Those Americans who represent the proverbial “squeaky wheel” reported last year to have reached a settlement agreement with Iraq are not resting until their rights are asserted–nor should other Americans with unresolved claims.  It is finally time for an Iraq Claims Program to be established and commence so that all American claimants are treated equally, fairly, and ultimately compensated for their injuries and losses at the hands of or caused by the Iraqi government.