End the Cuban Embargo - Brian Safran

A series of recent developments in Cuba have called into question the sanctity of its communist regime and the validity of the continuance of the embargo the U.S. has imposed upon it. The impending death of Fidel Castro has the potential to affect a societal transformation in Cuba that challenges its long-standing stance against the United States. In addition, even under the Castro regime, signs of the onset of free-market economics have begun to infiltrate in Cuba amidst widespread poverty. Nevertheless, the United States government continues to enforce its archaic economic embargo on Cuba, effectively castrating the Cuban people from basic necessities and the means to their sustenance and wellbeing. The embargo has led to international condemnation of the United States; and the policy is considered by many to violate international law. No longer does Cuba represent a militaristic threat to the United States, yet the U.S. continues to impose sanctions on it as if the two nations were engaged in a seemingly never-ending war to the detriment of both nations. Accordingly, it is of the utmost importance that the United States government reexamines its policies vis-à-vis Cuba during this time of socio-political instability. In order to establish a mutually beneficial relationship, the U.S. should seek to put an end to the existing embargo and travel restrictions it enforces against Cuba. The upcoming regime transition and the associated weakness it will bring to the political environment highlight this moment as one of the few opportunities the United States will have to affect meaningful change in Cuba.

The United States’ longstanding embargo on Cuba was instituted in the context of a specific socio-political climate; one which no longer exists. Having lent its support to the Soviet Union, Cuba had been perceived by the United States to be a major potential geo-political and militaristic resource for the powerful Soviet empire in its efforts to dominate and undermine the United States. (Mesa-Lago, 1971, 87-88; Weinmann, 2004, 23-24) In addition, the U.S. government believed Cuban communism to be a prominent source of regional instability and thus, threatening to our political and economic standing and way of life. (Falcoff, 2003, 98) Acting on these precepts, the U.S. government promulgated an embargo on Cuba in 1962, effectively prohibiting businesses from engaging in trade in or with Cuba, and forbidding American travelers from visiting the island. (Griswold, 2005, 1; Falcoff, 2003, 132) The embargo was initially enacted to symbolize the fact that the United States refuses to support regimes that in turn do not support liberal democracy. However, in practice it has evolved into a symbol of the United States’ helplessness and inability to accomplish its desired goal of eliminating communism in Cuba. It should be noted that while many of the originally sought upon goals of implementing the embargo have been reached, such as the prevention of the formation of major military confrontations against the U.S., and a reduction in the ability of Cuban communism to infiltrate throughout Latin America, the embargo has failed to destroy the Cuban Communist regime, which has continued to prosper under its veil. (Griswold, 2005, 1) Thus, the policy is in need of a critical reexamination.

Domestically, the effects of the ongoing U.S. embargo have been disastrous. Millions of Cubans are without the food necessary to ensure survival, and many have little to no access to basic medicines. (Schechner, 1994, 8) In addition, the embargo prevents Cuban hospitals from being stocked with basic laboratory products and surgical equipment; effectively reducing the availability of emergency services for the Cuban people. (Herrera, 2003, 54) The primary reason why these goods fail to reach the Cuban people has been the continuance of the embargo, which prohibits the majority of goods from entering into the nation from the United States or through third parties. (Schechner, 1994, 8; Weinmann, 2004, 24) Among its losses have been reductions in export earnings, losses incurred based upon the fact that inflows of goods and services must circumvent the United States, inefficiencies in production and technology derived from the absence of amicable relations with the U.S., limitations on the usage of the U.S. dollar, and restrictions on remittance and foreign direct investment. (Herrera, 2003, 52) Some have estimated the damages of the embargo to the Cuban economy to be over seventy billion dollars in totality. (Herrera, 2003, 52) It cannot be doubted that the embargo has perpetuated unfavorable domestic conditions in Cuba, having left millions of people absent of basic human necessities.

The Cuban people have been reluctant to allow for economic change because communism has brought about social welfare and protection in the form of free education, equal access to healthcare, and socioeconomic equality; which before its implementation many had been without. (Schechner, 1998, 8) In essence, even though Cuba has made great strides in achieving relatively high indicators in health and education over the past half century as compared to pre-communist rule, the embargo has prevented the nation from realizing the full extent of its socio-economic capabilities. (Herrera, 2003, 54) While Cuban socialism has served to improve the lifestyle of the Cuban populace, the country as a whole has been adversely affected by its consequences. Some make the argument that the embargo should be maintained, because the economic intervention of the United States was itself the primary catalyst for the Cuban Revolution. However, Mr. Castro needed and enjoyed popular support while leading the country into the Cuban Revolution; support of which he would have been unlikely to attain if the populace were to have been aware of the long-term damage that they were inflicting upon themselves (Luxenburg, 1988, 4) Thus, the economic benefits that the Cuban people would accrue if the embargo were to be eliminated would likely serve to substantially reduce the risk of a resurgence in anti-U.S. sentiment or a provocation of a strengthening of Cuban communism.

Those that support the embargo often make the claim that as such a small Caribbean country, the economic advantage to be gained by the United States in lifting its embargo on Cuba would be negligible. This assertion is simply without merit, and the evidence proves it. A committee of former Department of Transportation economists recently noted that eradicating the embargo would add 1.6 billion dollars in revenue to the U.S. economy and establish approximately twenty thousand additional jobs in the U.S. (Weinmann, 2004, 29) Analysts have asserted that had the embargo been lifted, the Cuban people would have been able to use revenues derived from tourism to purchase significant amounts of machinery and agricultural products from the United States. (Griswold, 2005, 2) In fact, the American Farm Bureau has stated that the embargo has caused U.S. businesses to lose out on a major potential export market in agriculture which could have led American farmers to profits upwards of one billion dollars, and to an additional quarter million dollars per year in the exportation of farming machinery and accessories. (Griswold, 2005, 2) The passage of the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, which banned all trade in foodstuffs to Cuba through U.S. subsidiaries, effectively deepening the Cuban depression, further served to damage U.S. agricultural business interests abroad. (Weinmann, 2004, 24; 29) In addition, the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which allowed U.S. citizens, including those Cuban-Americans who had not been citizens at the time, to commence lawsuits against companies that had engaged in indirect business transactions with the Castro regime has had a crippling affect on a multitude of U.S. businesses. (Vanden, 2006, 360-61) In addition, the maintenance of the embargo requires a significant utilization of national security resources that can clearly be put to better use in protecting America from substantive terrorism threats rather than by using them to enforce an inconsequential ban on Cuban travel. (Weinmann, 2004, 30) Thus, from an economic standpoint, the United States does indeed have the potential to benefit from a liberalization of trade with Cuba.

The continuance of the embargo has incited widespread international condemnation of the Untied States. The United Nations General Assembly has consistently denounced the imposition of the embargo almost unanimously on the basis of its illegitimacy and violation of internationally accepted humanitarian standards. (Herrera, 2003, 50) The United States has also recently had to relinquish its seats on the human rights commissions both in the United Nations and in the Organization of American States, which many analysts believe to be a form of retribution aimed at the United States in response to its continuation of the Cuban embargo in the midst of its unfathomable and deplorable effects on the Cuban populace. (Weinmann, 2004, 30) Many leaders in the international community have expressed their distain for the U.S. embargo through international organizations based on the fact that the United States attempts to impose the sanctions it places on Cuba via “extraterritoriality,” or against the international community, thus clearly violating internationally-accepted standards of national sovereignty and international law (Herrera, 2003, 51). Global public opinion perceives the United States as engaging in strong economic and political tactics such as the Cuban embargo in an effort to further its own world domination. This sentiment serves to divert attention from the evils of Cuban communism, and instead focus international pressure on the United States; serving to render the existing embargo less effective. Some say that the United States would stand to lose its credibility if it were to put an end to the embargo without its having accomplished its goals in totality. However, the anti-U.S. sentiment on a global scale derived from its continuation is of much greater detriment to U.S. interests than the short-term loss in credibility it may experience by reorganizing its policy. Although in a prior historical era the Cuban embargo and its intended goals might have been seen by the international community as justifiable, the U.S. intervention in Cuba has now come to symbolize the domineering and intolerant methodology that it fosters in many of its international engagements.

In addition, U.S. public opinion appears to be shifting in favor of eliminating the embargo. By virtue of its geography, influence in national elections, near even split in terms of ideological composition, and preponderance of Cuban-Americans living within its borders, U.S.-Cuban policy is often procured by considering the views of the now anti-embargo Floridian constituency (Schechner, 7, 1994). Traditionally, Cuban-Americans living in Florida have tended to support the embargo, seeing it as a way to force democracy upon Cuba so as to make the Cuban government more responsive to the demands of the Cuban people, and by extension, their own interests abroad. (Schechner, 1994, 7) In recent years however, many have begun to view the embargo as a failure of foreign policy. In addition, the U.S. government has placed numerous restrictions upon them, prohibiting them from visiting their families in Cuba more than once every three years, and decreasing the amount of remittance that they are entitled to provide for their Cuban relatives. (Lovato, 2004, 23) Based in part upon changing public opinion, the U.S. Congress has enacted numerous measures to decrease the extent of the Cuban embargo, including the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, which allowed for limited sales of U.S. agricultural products and medical supplies. (Griswold, 2005, 2) In 2003, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed measures designed to prevent the U.S. treasury from providing the funding necessary to enforce the ban on Cuban travel. (Weinmann, 2004, 28) Even within the Bush administration, many senior officials remain highly divided on how to best confront Cuban politics. (Weinmann, 2004, 25) Thus, many U.S. citizens and politicians believe the Cuban embargo to be unfounded and unnecessary in the contemporary world.

One may make the claim that the humanitarian concerns are a reason to maintain the embargo, citing the furtherance of and increase in human rights violations in China after the U.S. agreed to strengthen its economic ties in the 1990s. However, the applicability of this to Cuba is limited by the fact that United States shares a very different relationship with China than it does with Cuba. (Griswold, 2005, 3) In addition, the U.S. has learned from its past mistakes. Realizing that no foreign policy decision is finite, the United States should seek to gradually relax the embargo contingent upon the demonstration of measurable improvement in human rights and by continuing to oversee Cuban affairs to ensure that humanitarian concerns are being addressed and resolved. Many Cuban’s have begun to realize the need for their country to undergo economic change. In fact, even the Cuban government has recently undertaken initiatives that can be perceived as the beginnings of a transformation to a market economy, its having “cut subsidies, decentralized its economic structure, established joint ventures with hundreds of foreign private companies in a clear form of privatization, and has introduced competition between its own enterprises and companies” (Weinmann, 2004, 31-2). The desire for economic prosperity among the Cuban people is likely to supersede and undermine the ability of the Communism regime to strengthen its suppressive tactics. Fidel Castro, the prominent figurehead and individual largely responsible for the maintenance of its communist regime, is believed to be near death. (Fawthrop, 2006, 1) Many believe the end of the Castro regime will in of itself affect a hastening towards free market reform and a diminution of communist rule and hence human rights violations. The United States should consider using its lifting of the embargo as a bargaining chip for which to promulgate a diminution of human rights violations in Cuba. The United States government must come to the realization that in the midst of the political and economic instability propagated by widespread shortages in basic necessities; gradual, yet ubiquitous advances on behalf of the Cuban government towards establishing a market economy; and the foreseeable socio-political volatility likely to arise after the death of Mr. Castro, the time for change is now.

In conclusion, the embargo that the United States has placed upon Cuba has served to accomplish many of its intended goals. The policy was arguably of benefit to the United States insofar as it curbed the spread of communism and diminished the potential for military action to ensue against it. Cuban society, having undergone multiple transformations, has weathered the effects of the embargo. The Cuban people have survived years devoid of economic opportunities, and as a result have failed to achieve their maximum potential. A relaxation of the communist stance in Cuba has been fostered by a realization of the benefits that can be conferred by instituting free trade. As such, the sustenance of the communist regime stands in jeopardy, and the threat that it poses to global security has been greatly reduced. In addition, the policy has procured global anti-U.S. sentiment, threatening to lessen the United States’ standing in the international community as a result. The United States must take advantage of the foreseeable political instability set to arise in Cuba after the imminent death of Fidel Castro. Only when the United States puts an end to its Cuban embargo will it be able to affect meaningful change and greater wellbeing for both Cuba and itself.

Works Cited:

Falcoff, Mark. Cuba: the Morning After. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2003. 1-241.

Fawthrop, Tom. "As Castro Fades, a Crop of New Leaders." The Christian Science Monitor 27 Dec. 2007. 13 Apr. 2007 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1227/p06s01-woam.htm>.

Griswold, Daniel. "Four Decades of Failure: the U.S. Embargo Against Cuba." Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies. 12 Oct. 2005. Rice University. 16 Apr. 2007 <http://www.freetrade.org/node/433/print>.

Herrera, Remy. "Why Lift the Embargo?" Document 1 (2003): 50-54. JSTOR. JSTOR. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. 13 Apr. 2007. Keyword: Cuba and Embargo.

Lovato, Roberto. "Rocking the Cuban Vote." The Nation 1 (2004): 23-26. JSTOR. JSTOR. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. 13 Apr. 2007. Keyword: Cuba and Embargo.

Luxenberg, Alan H. "Did Eisenhower Push Castro Into the Arms of the Soviets?" Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 1 (1988): 37-71. JSTOR. JSTOR. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. 13 Apr. 2007. Keyword: Cuba and Embargo.

Mesa-Lago, Carmela, ed. Revolutionary Change in Cuba. 1st ed. Vol. 1. London: Henry M. Snyder & Co., Inc., 1971. 3-525.

Schechner, Richard. "Cuba: Lift the American Embargo Now." TDR (1988-) 38 (1994): 7-9. JSTOR. JSTOR. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. 13 Apr. 2007. Keyword: Cuba and Embargo.

Vanden, Henry E., and Gary Prevost. Politics of Latin America: the Power Game. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford UP, Inc., 2006. 238-240.

Weinmann, Lissa. "Washington's Irrational Cuba Policy." World Policy Journal 1 (2004): 22-31. JSTOR. JSTOR. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. 13 Apr. 2007. Keyword: Cuba and Embargo.