Agriculture wants Cuban trade embargo to end

Cuba-US relations thawing?

The first step in a long process that may end the 54 year old Cuban trade embargo with the US may have taken place last year. The debate over officially ending the embargo is expected to heat up soon (Photo from

A major market for American agricultural products lies 90 miles off the coast of Florida. However, thanks to a 54-year-old American embargo against Cuba, it’s very difficult for products to move back and forth between countries.

The first step in thawing relations between the two countries may have happened December 17 of last year. President Obama announced he would begin efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. Agriculture groups across the country took notice of a potential opportunity to expand exports to a country of 11 million people.

“What if corn exports to Cuba went from 137,000 tons to 900,000 tons?” Erick Erickson is Vice President of the US Grain Council, and said normalization would be a great opportunity for agriculture, and for Cuba as well.

“It’s got to be more cheap for Cuba to buy from America too,” said Erickson.  “You can almost pack it in grocery bags and carry it across the water because it’s so close. It’s got to be cheaper than buying from overseas.”

Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson of the US Grains Council is in favor of ending the US Trade embargo with Cuba, and feels the opportunities for agricultural trade would be a boon for US producers (Photo from

Ag groups have been working on getting the embargo lifted for a long time.

“There’s a lot of controversy about the embargo,” said Erickson. “We didn’t do it with the Soviet Union, we didn’t do it with China, and other countries we’ve had issues with.”

Said Erickson, “The position of the US Grains Council is that removing trade barriers is good. Without trying to weigh in on all the other complicating issues, actions that remove trade barriers and open up the marketplace to work are a good thing for both sides of the equation.”

One of the newer groups formed to work on this issue is the US Ag Coalition for Cuba (USACC). The group is made up of more than 25 agribusiness groups from around the country, and their goal is a simple one: to urge repeal of the 1996 law that made permanent the sanctions on Cuba.

The US Ag Coalition for Cuba held a press conference on January 8 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to announce their formation.

“Through the formation of the USACC, we are re-energized,” said Devry Boughner Vorwerk, the USACC Chair. “We are re-energized to establish Cuba as a market for US food and agriculture products, and as an industry, we are re-energized to end the embargo.”

“The sanctions hurt the Cuban people, and harmful to our country,” said Vorwerk, the Director of International Relations for Cargill. “54 years of unilateral sanctions is an experiment that’s gone on too long. It’s a failed policy, and it’s time our two countries had a better option.”

US Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke at the press conference. He said President Obama’s announcement represents an opportunity for Cuban residents to gain control over their own lives.

Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack

US Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke at the US Ag Coalition for Cuba press conference, announcing major ag group’s intentions of pressing for the end of the US Trade Embargo with Cuba. The conference was covered by C-Span (photo from

“It’s also an opportunity for America’s farmers and ranchers to sell goods in Cuba,” said Vilsack. “We’re removing some technical barriers between US and Cuban companies, and creating a far more efficient, and less burdensome, opportunity to buy US agricultural products.”

Said Vilsack, “Cuba imports roughly 80 percent of its food, which means there is significant economic potential for our producers. It’s a 1.7 billion dollar market.”

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon also spoke at the USACC press conference, and said American farmers face an uneven playing field when talking about Cuba.

“Because of current sanctions, American producers can only interact with Cuba through a complicated process that greatly limits our ability to sell goods,” said Governor Nixon. “It also stifles our ability to create jobs here, and bring more dollars home.”

Kansas Senator Jerry Moran spoke at the press conference, and said the US Sanctions haven’t worked, and it’s time for a change.

“In Kansas, we’ll try something once,” said Moran. “We don’t always expect it to be successful the first time. Kansans have enough common sense to know if you try something for 54 years, it’s time for something different.

If the goal is for the United States to change the relationship between Cuban citizens and their government, what we’ve been doing has not worked. It hasn’t worked because it’s unilateral. When we don’t trade with Cuba, it’s not that they’re not getting agricultural commodities. They’re getting them from somewhere else.”

The fight to normalize trade relations with Cuba will not be an easy one. Secretary Vilsack said the President has done all he can, and it’s time to engage Congress in the debate.

Erick Erickson, the VP of the National Grains Council, said, “The teeth of the embargo are congressionally mandated, so it’s not clear what Congress will do. Some in Congress have said this is a good idea, and some have said it’s a bad idea.”

Said Erickson, “The question is, will Congress decide they want to do anything to oppose this? Maybe they will, or maybe not. This is probably a long-term process the President has started, and it may not be done before he leaves office.”





Agenda 21 is either sound policy or something sinister

Agenda 21 first came into being as a “non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations regarding sustainable development” at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. The website says the gathering, also known as “Earth Summit,” took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  However, based on whom you ask, this document may be more than that.

The original Agenda 21 document (photo from

The original Agenda 21 document (photo from


Visit the website and you’ll find Agenda 21 described as a “process for meeting the needs of the present generation without harming the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” calls Agenda 21 an “elitist plan to control your life, demanding you do as I say not as I do.”


Agenda 21 is born


According to the website, the “Earth Summit” was a first-of-its-kind U.N. Conference, both in terms of the number of attendees, and the wide-ranging scope of concerns it dealt with. The U.N. sought to help world governments redo their economic development processes, as well as limit the use of disappearing natural resources and reduce damage to the environment.


Hundreds of thousands of people attended the conference in Rio.  The message of the conference was “that nothing less that a complete change of thinking, in both attitudes and behaviors, would bring about necessary changes.” notes as a result of the Earth Summit, over 170 countries signed on to Agenda 21, including then-American President George H.W. Bush

Earth Summit delegates signing the Earth Pledge (photo from the

Earth Summit delegates signing the Earth Pledge (photo from the


Agenda 21 and hidden motives


Americans Against Agenda 21 is a group based in Rochester, Minnesota, and in recent years began noticing some interesting terms popping up in their local neighborhood planning meetings.


Their website,, notes the terms included “sustainable development, open space, heritage areas, historic preservation, comprehensive managing, growth areas, and smart growth.”  The group said, “all of these terms sound good, and we thought they were things we could support.”  However, as time went by, they learned more about Agenda 21.


AAA21 says those “good sounding terms have a foundation directly in Agenda 21.”

More walking paths over fewer cars on the roads because of Agenda 21? (photo by Chad Smith)

More walking paths over fewer cars on the roads because of Agenda 21? (photo by Chad Smith)


The website notes that some readers may think it “sounds like a crazy conspiracy.”  They say, “It may sound like some crazy kook theory that the average person should just write off.”  They encourage readers to look through all the evidence on their website and make their own decisions.


The people behind Agenda 21

Glen Beck is a one-time political commentator for Fox News, and he offered some evidence supporting the theory that Agenda 21 is not what it seems:





Plans in motion


In a video posted by Jason A on, local communities around the country are realizing what Agenda 21 actually is:  an infiltration of local governments by globalists in the United Nations:



The “stack em and pack em” comment in the video caught the attention of Steve Roberts, a member of Rochester, Minnesota-based Americans Against Agenda 21.  He says it’s begun happening in recent years to Rochester residents.


“In recent years, planning department are putting increasing pressure on homeowner associations regarding an increasing number of bike paths, less and less parking, and shoe-horning multi-family developments into residential areas.”


He offered up the example of a new development on Fifth Avenue Southwest in Rochester.  “It’s right there, literally next door to single-family homes on all sides,” said Roberts.  “Neighborhood residents didn’t want it there, but the city said the

More multi-family dwellings and less homes in Agenda 21? (Photo by Chad Smith)

More multi-family dwellings and less homes in Agenda 21? (Photo by Chad Smith)

project owner did due diligence, and we’re going to allow it, right in the middle of a residential neighborhood.”  His allegations were confirmed in Amendment to Land Use Planning  #R2014-001LUPA, showing a medium-density, multi-family dwelling put into a residential neighborhood.


He offered as proof of his claims a written document that Rochester’s membership in the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, which is a United Nations-backed organization, directly created by the original Agenda 21 document to influence local governments.  Roberts included a string of emails with then-Rochester City Planner Phil Wheeler stating Rochester’s ICLEI dues totaled $1,710.

What happens to modern Agriculture under Agenda 21? (photo by Chad Smith)

What happens to modern Agriculture under Agenda 21? (photo by Chad Smith)



“This is not going to go away,” said Roberts.


The website agrees with Roberts.  They say, “Isn’t Agenda 21 just a plan to protect the environment and stop urban sprawl?”  No.  They say they oppose Agenda 21 because it is designed to control every aspect of our lives.


How will Agenda 21 affect individuals?


The website called Agenda 21 “a substantial attack on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”  They state Agenda 21 is designed to replace the economic and social structure of the United States, and offered up some of the “unsustainable” targets:


Page Number Unsustainable =We will take this away!
337 Ski runs
350 Grazing of livestock
351 Disturbance of soil surface-plowing of soil, building fences
728 Commercial Agriculture-Modern farm production, chemical fertilizers, fossil fuels, etc.
730 Any Industrial activity
730 “Human-made caves of brick and mortar (single family homes)
730 Paved and tarred roads, Railroads, floor and wall tiles
733 Technology, range lands, fish ponds, plantations or rangelands
738 Harvesting timber and modern hunting
748 Logging activities
755 Dams and reservoirs, straightening of rivers
757 Power line construction
763 Economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.
Will Agenda 21 mean the end of golf courses? (Photo by Chad Smith)

Will Agenda 21 mean the end of golf courses? (Photo by Chad Smith)


Conspiracy theory or sound policy?


Americans Against Agenda 21 said on it’s website, “after investigation, we found that the essential elements of this document are being supported locally, sometimes using public tax dollars.  Not only are the elements supported, they are being implemented as well.”


They say it’s “not remote. It’s not abstract and off in the future. It’s here, and it’s here now.”


They and other groups against Agenda 21 invite readers to do their own research, and form their own opinions on whether or not it’s a global conspiracy or sound environmental policy.