Nov

1

Under Any Other Name


Posted by at 9:11 am on November 1, 2007
Category: General

Felipe Ramon Perez Roque
Felipe Ramón Pérez Roque

ExportLawBlog opposes, as most readers know, unilateral sanctions, including the Cuba sanctions. But the speech given yesterday by Felipe Ramón Pérez Roque, Cuba’s Foreign Minister, before the UN prior to the UN’s annual vote on a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo, didn’t do Cuba or other who oppose the embargo any favors.

The Minister’s speech, larded throughout with purple prose and hyperbole typical of the Castro regime, claims that the blockade is an “attempt to subdue the Cuban people through starvation and disease.” And, in what is probably this year’s most unwanted compliment, the Cuban Foreign Minister expressed his “solidarity” with Michael Moore and his on-going fight with OFAC over his trip to Cuba to film “Sicko.”

The Minister’s speech recounted a number of alleged effects of the embargo, but this one struck me in particular:

Cuban children cannot receive Sevorane, an inhalation anesthetic manufactured by the American company Abbott, which is the best product for children’s general anesthesia. We have to use lower-quality substitutes.

This, of course, sounds like bunch of hooey, since an inhalation anesthetic would certainly qualify as a medicine that could be exported under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”). But there is more to the story, it would seem, even if the story still remains a bunch of hooey.

Sevorane is the Canadian brand name for sevoflurane sold by Abbott Canada. That suggests that Abbott Canada, a foreign subsidiary of U.S.-based Abbott probably ran up against section 746.2(b)(3)(iii) of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), which restricts exports by foreign subsidiaries owned or controlled by a U.S. parent. In the case of medicines, these exports are only allowed if the

transaction involves the export of foreign-produced medicines or medical devices incorporating U.S. origin parts, components or materials … .

If Sevorane was produced in the United States, which seems likely, then Abbott Canada couldn’t ship it to Cuba.

So why is the Foreign Minister’s anecdote still a bunch of hooey? Simple. Sevoflurane, which is sold as Sevorane in Canada, is sold as Ultane in the United States. This means that the very same inhalation anesthetic, albeit under a different name, could be shipped to Cuba under the provisions of TSRA.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, after the Foreign Minister’s speech, the U.N. passed — for the sixteenth year in a row — a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo of Cuba. Only Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau voted with the U.S. to oppose the resolution. The resolution is unlikely to have any effect.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


3 Comments:


Not to defend the Cuban FM’s rediculous speech, but TSRA did NOT permit US medical exports to Cuba, because TSRA only applied to unilateral sanctions declared by the president. Medical exports to Cuba are subject to the provision of the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, which imposes fairly strict end use criteria that cannot be met in the current diplomatic environment. As a result, while TSRA resulted in a large increase in US farm exports to Cuba since 2000, medical exports remain minimal.

Comment by Cowboy on November 1st, 2007 @ 9:38 am

Cowboy — I don’t agree that TSRA only applies to unilateral sanctions imposed by the President. I do agree that there is, however, a question as to what effect TSRA had on the prior provisions of the Cuba Democracy Act, which imposed certain conditions on medical exports to Cuba. These restrictions are embodied in EAR § 746.2(b)(1) and still claimed by BIS to be in place.

These may well have imposed conditions that are difficult to meet as you assert. I have done licenses for agricultural products to Cuba but not for medicines or medical devices, so I haven’t had direct experience with how BIS currently administers the conditions set forth in § 746.2(b)(1). Anybody who has recently had experience with such licenses is welcomed to chime in!

Comment by Clif Burns on November 1st, 2007 @ 10:05 am

two comments:

1. TSRA, 22 usc 7202 states: “. . .the President may not impose a unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical sanction . . . .” In the definition section, TSRA also states that unilateral sanctions are sanctions “imposed by the United States.” So it is unclear whether TSRA applies to pre-existing Congressionally-mandated unilateral sanctions (certainly not later in time ones, like the Syria Accountability Act, though).

2. In any case, BIS does not apply TSRA to medical items. I think they said as much when they implemented TSRA (see FR notice that imposes License Exception AGR), though they did adopt TSRA’s definition of medical “device”. If BIS implemented TSRA for medical items, we would have a license exception available for such things, like AGR.

Comment by bb on November 2nd, 2007 @ 7:21 pm