Skip to main content

The Anatomy of Absolute Power

Page 1


The Anatomy of Absolute Power: From Individual

Abuse to Collective Embargo

A Structural Analysis

For more than 30 years, the international community has consistently affirmed that unilateral coercive measures do not merely affect States, they affect human beings. To understand the depth of this harm, we present a comparative framework that explains, in a structured and legally grounded manner, how certain mechanisms of individual domination find their structural reflection at the collective scale when a powerful nation imposes an embargo on another.

Comparative List (1–8): Mechanisms of Harm vs. the Embargo and International Law

1. Deprivation of Liberty / Unilateral Coercion

Individual Case:

The perpetrator exercises total control over the victim’s freedom and autonomy.

Embargo Against Cuba:

A State applies unilateral and extraterritorial policies that severely restrict the country’s economic sovereignty and political independence.

UN and International Law:

The UN Charter (Arts. 2.1 and 2.4) prohibits any form of coercion that undermines the political independence of a State. Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCMs) are incompatible with this principle.

2. Deprivation of Food and Essential Resources

Individual Case:

The child is deprived of food, care and essential resources to force submission.

Embargo Against Cuba:

The embargo restricts access to food, medical supplies, technology and essential goods needed for daily life.

UN and International Law:

The ICESCR (Arts. 11 and 12) and the CESCR affirm that denying access to food and medicine violates fundamental rights.

The UN has reiterated that UCMs directly affect the right to life.

3. Torture / Deliberate Infliction of Suffering

Individual Case:

The aggressor intentionally inflicts physical and psychological pain to control the victim.

Embargo Against Cuba:

The embargo produces foreseeable economic and humanitarian suffering: shortages, inflated costs, treatment interruptions and deterioration of living conditions.

UN and International Law:

The UN has stated that sanctions producing foreseeable humanitarian damage raise serious concerns regarding conformity with international law and may constitute cruel or degrading treatment.

4. Rape / Irreversible Harm to Personal Integrity

Individual Case:

The most extreme act of domination, destroying the victim’s physical and emotional integrity.

Embargo Against Cuba:

The embargo harms the dignity of millions: it blocks therapies, interrupts vital treatments, restricts access to health technologies and generates externally induced poverty.

UN and International Law:

UN human rights bodies have repeatedly declared that UCMs affecting civilians violate core principles of human dignity and fundamental rights.

5. Absolute Power Asymmetry

Individual Case:

The victim cannot defend themselves or escape.

Embargo Against Cuba:

Cuba cannot respond symmetrically due to its dependence on a global financial system in which the U.S. exerts structural control.

UN and International Law:

International law rejects any action that exploits the structural vulnerability of a small State.

Sovereign equality (UN Charter Art. 2.1) prohibits such coercive imbalance.

6. Violation of Child Protection / Civilian Protection

Individual Case:

The harm is inflicted upon the most legally protected group: children.

Embargo Against Cuba:

The embargo primarily affects the most vulnerable sectors: children, the elderly, the sick, pregnant women, and those with chronic illnesses.

UN and International Law:

The UN requires the absolute protection of civilians under all circumstances. The Human Rights Council has declared that UCMs violate this cardinal principle.

7. Intent or Knowledge of Harm

Individual Case:

The aggressor knows they are destroying the child’s life and dignity.

Embargo Against Cuba:

Official U.S. documents have acknowledged that the policy seeks to generate “discouragement, pressure and despair” to induce internal political change.

UN and International Law:

UCMs designed to coerce civilian populations violate the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration and International Human Rights Law.

8. Universal Condemnation

Individual Case:

Society condemns such acts as inhuman and morally intolerable.

Embargo Against Cuba:

For 31 consecutive years, the UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly against the embargo.

UN and International Law:

The General Assembly has declared the embargo “contrary to international law,” “incompatible with the Charter,” and demanded its unconditional end.

UN–Style Legal–Medical Bridge Paragraph

(Pre-Conclusion)

Before reaching the general conclusion, it is essential to recall how justice systems and the medical sciences characterize the individual case that serves as the structural reference point. From a legal perspective, the perpetrator who kidnaps, starves, tortures and sexually abuses a minor is universally classified as an extremely dangerous criminal an offender whose actions violate the most fundamental rights to liberty, integrity and human dignity, warranting the highest levels of penal sanction. From a medical and psychiatric perspective, such conduct corresponds to severe clinical profiles psychopathy, sadism, and antisocial disorders revealing a persistent will to achieve absolute domination through control, deprivation and deliberate harm. In both legal and medical frameworks, the conduct is judged as a total assault on the human being, incompatible with any ethical or civilizational boundary. This characterization of the individual case clarifies why, when evaluating analogous mechanisms of harm at the collective scale, international law recognizes equivalent patterns of moral and legal unacceptability.

Conclusion

The detailed examination of each dimension of harm from deprivation of liberty and essential resources to power asymmetry and intentionality, demonstrates that the U.S. embargo against Cuba is not merely a failed foreign policy, but a form of structural violence. By unilaterally blocking access to medicines, food, technologies and development opportunities, the embargo imposes a form of coercion that transcends political disagreement and directly impacts the bodies and daily lives of civilians, constituting collective punishment.

Against this exercise of power, the UN Charter and international law emerge not only as normative frameworks but as the ethical limits that such measures violate. The illegitimacy of the embargo becomes evident when contrasted with the principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, peaceful cooperation and the protection of economic and social human rights. The near-unanimous condemnation expressed in 31 consecutive General Assembly resolutions is not symbolic, it is the explicit affirmation that this policy stands outside international legality.

Ultimately, this analysis reveals that the embargo represents a fracture in the conscience of the multilateral system. It is proof that the logic of force, now packaged as economic coercion, can persist even against the spirit and the letter of the UN Charter. Its continuity poses a fundamental question: What value does an international order founded on human dignity and sovereign equality have if it cannot protect a people from suffering deliberately imposed by another State?

The elimination of the embargo is therefore not simply a political demand or bilateral issue. It is a legal and moral imperative for the health of the international system. It is a reminder that all power, no matter how great, must have limits, and that the protection of the vulnerable, whether a child or an entire people, remains the ultimate measure of the civilization that international law aspires to embody.

Sincerely,

Doctor

Email: Horacio.jesus@yahoo.es

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook