Monde · Cuba · Archives« Pure propagande » — Au cœur de l’affrontement de 4 minutes sur Cuba qui a enflammé le CapitoleRédigé 7 septembre 2026 à 21:22 UTCRegarderTranscription0:00On Capitol Hill today, a House Foreign0:02Affairs Committee hearing turned heated0:04when the US Ambassador to the United0:06Nations flatly denied that the United0:08States has a naval blockade of Cuba and0:10accused a Democratic Congressman of0:12spreading propaganda. Illinois0:13Representative Jonathan Jackson raised0:15the blockade issue during questioning.0:17Ambassador Mike Waltz did not mince0:19words in his response, calling Jackson's0:22claim absolute propaganda and accusing0:24him of repeating what Waltz called Cuban0:26propaganda. The semantic distinction0:28carries real legal weight. Under0:30international law, a blockade is0:32considered an act of war, a coercive0:35measure that can trigger self-defense0:36rights. An embargo, by contrast, is a0:39trade restriction, not a military0:41action. Ambassador Waltz insisted the0:43administration's policy is an embargo,0:45not a blockade, but the reality of0:47stepped-up enforcement actions around0:48Cuba has led some lawmakers and legal0:50experts to question whether the0:52administration is accurately describing0:54its own policy. While Ambassador Waltz0:56defended the administration's language,0:58the exchange underscores a broader0:59debate over how the US describes its1:01posture toward Cuba and whether that1:03description matches actions on the1:04water.Lire l’articleChronologie de l’histoireHeyDexLe format court ↗
