KINGSTON, Jamaica — Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Kamina Johnson Smith has defended Jamaica’s decision to abstain from a United Nations vote calling for an end to the United States embargo against Cuba, rejecting former Prime Minister PJ Patterson’s description of the move as an “abominable betrayal”.

Patterson, in a statement on Saturday, condemned the Government’s decision, arguing that it represented a departure from Jamaica’s longstanding support for the annual resolution calling for an end to the US economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba.

“It was a day of shame for the land of Marcus Garvey, and a stain on the record of a nation which, before we had even raised our own flag, closed its ports to trade with apartheid South Africa,” Patterson said.

READ: ‘An Abominable Betrayal’: Patterson blasts Jamaica’s abstention on Cuba

But in a statement to the Jamaica Observer on Sunday, acknowledging Patterson’s contribution to Jamaica’s foreign policy, Johnson Smith said his criticism was disappointing because it relied “heavily on emotions, mischaracterisations and conclusions that do not withstand scrutiny”.

She insisted that Jamaica had not changed its opposition to the embargo and remained concerned about its impact on the Cuban people, while valuing the country’s longstanding friendship and cooperation with Cuba.

Johnson Smith argued, however, that the Government had reassessed whether continued support for an annual resolution addressing only one aspect of Cuba’s circumstances was the most constructive approach.

“Mr Patterson’s suggestion that an abstention amounts to support for the embargo, or silence in the face of Cuban suffering, is simply incorrect. The UN system offers three voting approaches which are quite distinct and not inter-changeable — for, against and abstention. Jamaica did not vote against the resolution. We abstained. We also were not silent. We formally explained our position immediately after the vote,” she said.

“Our ambassador and permanent representative to the UN expressly acknowledged the contribution of external economic restrictions to Cuba’s difficulties, while also recognising the domestic economic and structural challenges affecting the country. Jamaica called for reduced restrictions, constructive engagement and Cuba’s greater integration into the international economic system,” she continued.

“It is true that Jamaica could have voted in favour while expressing reservations. But an explanation of vote does not alter the position conveyed by the vote itself. Our decision reflected an assessment of the resolution in its entirety,” she added.

Johnson Smith further noted that she addressed the decision at a post-Cabinet press briefing in Kingston within minutes of the vote, where she outlined the Government’s position and shared the ambassador’s explanation of vote.

“In what world can this be honestly described as silence?” she questioned.

The minister argued that after more than three decades of annual resolutions calling for an end to the embargo, the restrictions remain in place and conditions facing the Cuban people have deteriorated. She said it was therefore reasonable to consider whether a broader approach could better achieve the shared objective of improving the lives of the Cuban people.

Johnson Smith said principle should guide policy, not prevent us from examining its effectiveness.

She also rejected Patterson’s assertion that the abstention violated a unanimous parliamentary resolution and constituted a parliamentary offence warranting her resignation.

“This is a serious allegation, particularly from a former prime minister familiar with our constitutional system. The motion brought before Parliament expressed concern for the Cuban people and supported constructive engagement, reduced economic restrictions and Cuba’s greater integration into the international economic system. These positions are consistent with Jamaica’s explanation of vote,” the minister said.

“Crucially, the motion did not direct the Government to vote in favour of the UN resolution, nor did it purport to bind the Executive to a particular voting position. In any event, Parliament’s important responsibility to debate policy and hold ministers accountable must not be confused with the Executive’s constitutional responsibility for conducting policy which must include its foreign relations.

“Certainly it could not be suggested that the Parliament or the Executive could be bound by the fact that Opposition Parliamentarians called for an end to the blockade in their contributions to the debate,” she explained.

The minister insisted that no parliamentary instruction had been defied and that there was no credible basis for the allegation of a parliamentary offence.

Johnson Smith also dismissed Patterson’s suggestion that external pressure or the pursuit of favour influenced the Government’s decision, noting that the administration had outlined its position before the vote.

She pointed to Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ remarks on the need for a more considered approach to Cuba’s circumstances at an earlier Caribbean Community (Caircom) Heads of Government meeting, as well as Jamaica’s national policy statement at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

“With all due respect to Mr Patterson, sovereignty cannot mean that a decision is independent only when it accords with the preferences of former leaders. The suggestion that his view may also be shared by former Prime Minister [Bruce] Golding would therefore not persuade me otherwise.  Each Government has the responsibility to exercise its own judgment in the national interest,” Johnson Smith said.

She insisted that the Cuban people deserved more than an annual expression of solidarity that had failed to achieve its central objective, arguing that constructive international engagement was needed to bring meaningful improvements to their lives.