Maintaining the Embargo on Cuban Trade

RETURN TO THE ALEXTHORN.COM WRITINGS SECTION

Maintaining the Embargo on Cuban-American Trade

In order to maintain pressure on Castro’s dying regime

Alex Thorn

Class of 2004

Mr. Christopher Gurry

International Relations

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent termination of $4.5 billion in direct subsidies, Fidel Castro has done little to nothing to move forward to more democratic, free-market reforms. In response, Castro has tried desperately (which in and of itself is questionable) to find new sources of national revenue and revitalize the old ones. Further, Castro’s attempts to attract tourism and hang on to the formerly lucrative sugar industry have proved futile. This economic collapse, which, after only five years without the Soviet aid, had shrunk by more than half, has imperiled the stability of the Castro regime. Responding to the complete peril of his economy (and actual lack of an economy), Castro has tried to place the blame on the American trade embargo that has been in place for the last four decades. The embargo, originally employed by President Eisenhower in October of 1960 in response to the anti-American policies (expropriation of Americans’ property and alignment with Soviet bloc), truly has hurt the Cuban people, but only to the extent that it has left Cuba as, essentially, a time warp – where 1950 Chevy’s are a daily sight and pesticides and herbicides are hard to come by. If the United States were to lift the embargo, the country would prosper immediately which would first A) give some money back to the people of Cuba, but would, more importantly to the United States, B) revitalize Castro’s communist regime. Although the United States today stands virtually alone in its insistence on maintaining the embargo, it must stand firm; Cuba is on the brink of becoming free of Castro and the United States cannot stand down and allow Castro to enough power to sustain his regime long after he is gone. To hasten the transition to a post-Castro Cuba, which would be much better in the long term for Americans and Cubans alike, the administration must maintain the embargo until irreversible economic and political reforms leading to democratic capitalism take place.

On May 20, 2002, the day Cuba celebrates its independence as a nation, President George W. Bush’s speech amounted to an invitation that Fidel Castro was almost certain to decline: Hold free elections and liberalize your economy, and we will trade with you. Asking Castro to do so, of course, would be a rhetorical question; he would never give up the national control and power that comes with his communist regime. So, as most opponents of the embargo protest, why not lift the embargo, because it’s not as if communism poses a threat to our sovereignty nowadays, whether or not he’s a communist? The answer to this question lies in the true bilateralism that is the cause of the trade embargo. The United States did not impose the trade embargo based on evidence of wrongdoings; as did the United States invade Iraq. Instead, the United States placed economic sanctions on Cuba because Castro stole our properties and businesses and, throughout the last fifty years, has allegedly committed a number of human rights violations tantamount to those of Saddam. Essentially, lifting the embargo would hurt the United States and, in turn, it wouldn’t help Cuba all that much because Cuba’s economic cannot be blamed on the United States, though Castro would have the world believe the opposite. The truth, however, is that Cuba's economic destruction was caused by the regime's ruinous economic policies. Specifically, Castro's command economy, based on a 1976 constitution and laws which prohibit private enterprise and ownership of property, completely destroyed the free market in Cuba, hindering economic growth and prosperity.

Thus, removing the embargo would be ineffective as a means to supply relief to the Cuban people because A) they truly wouldn’t benefit that much, given that Cuba’s lack of economic growth can be more accurately attributed to its communist government than to the embargo, and because B) they aren’t too bad right now as it is, but that the Fidel Castro is still the same dictator he was forty years ago: a violent, intolerant communist.

So, the question remains, is Fidel Castro still a threat to his own people or the United States and, if so, why would maintaining the trade embargo serve as an effective long-term strategy in combating him? Last March, just as U.S. forces were beginning the invasion of Iraq, Fidel Castro ordered “The Crackdown in Cuba,” as Theresa Bond states in Foreign Affairs. In all, he arrested and imprisoned 75 dissenters, including independent journalists, independent librarians, and democracy activists, some of whom were among the most important freedom figures in the country: the coordinators of the Varela Project (a democratic-reform movement); Raul Rivero, the dean of independent journalists; and Marta Beatriz Roque, a fearless economist. All were given harsh sentences averaging 20 years in jail. Only days later, three men who had hijacked a ferry in an attempt to flee to the United States were given even harsher punishments: they were shot by a firing squad, despite the fact that there had been no violence during their attempted escape. Castro is still the same ruthless and intolerant dictator that he was forty years ago when Eisenhower first imposed the embargo. At least 13,000 Cuban citizens have been executed since 1959, and over 100,000 have been jailed for opposing the Castro regime, including at least 28,000 still in prison today.

As to the other side of the question (whether or not Cuba poses a threat to United States sovereignty, as it did during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962), Cuba is only a threat to American sovereignty as much as Castro refuses to give his people the inalienable right of freedom and the ability to pursue happiness. As it is a fact that the Cuban military is impotent, so is it true that the Soviet Union is not still around to power Cuba’s anti-American, communist sentiments. Thus, in terms of physical safety, the United States has nothing to worry about from Cuba in terms of warfare. However, to argue that violent oppression and intolerance are unsatisfactory to merit action (not even action, but the continuance of a policy that has been around for more than four decades) by the United States is to argue a completely conservative point of United States isolationism, which is interesting because the staunch opponents of the embargo are liberals. However, as we have seen again and again throughout history, past and present, the essence of liberalism often leads to an actual conservative stance of non-intervention, sometimes at the expense of others (in this case, the oppressed Cuban population).

In keeping the embargo and demanding a shift towards democracy, the United States would be successful in combating Cuba in the way that the anti-war-on-Iraq protestors demanded we handle that conflict: economic sanctions that aim to cripple the government, not the people. However, many of the same people who protested the war on Iraq, such as Rev. Coffin, oppose the Cuban trade embargo (which is, essentially, what they wanted in Iraq), because, as Coffin said on Wednesday, maintaining the economic sanctions against Cuba shows the “imperialism” of the United States and our desire to force democracy on the island nation. But the revolution in democratic capitalism that has swept the Western Hemisphere has had little to do with Washington's efforts to export democracy. Rather, it has had to do with Latin America's hard-earned realization that the free-enterprise system is the only system capable of providing self-sustaining growth and increasing prosperity. Once again, Castro’s mismanagement of his own economy and stubborn inability to relinquish power to the people is to blame for the economic turmoil in Cuba, not the United States trade embargo. Lifting the trade embargo with Cuba would be ineffective because it was not the cause of the economic disorder.

The fact is that the United States trade embargo has (if only) coincided with Cuba’s economic troubles. However, the embargo cannot be blamed any more than a little for the dip in the economy, for Cuba is a perfect example of the failures of communism. The Cuban sugar industry has been hit hard, producing nearly 80% less sugarcane in 2002 than it did in 2001, while tourism has dwindled since the Sept. 11^th attacks on the United States. All in all, the Cuban economy’s inability to liberalize is what is holding back the nation as a whole, not the United States trade embargo. Even Cuba’s pride and joy, the health and educational services championed and guaranteed under the communist dictatorship, have eroded, with most medicines no longer available to the public and with schools whose teachers are indifferent to the point where many don’t regularly attend class. Truly, the effects of the embargo have been aggrandized by those in opposition to the embargo. In reality, the negative effects of lifting the embargo would prove much more harmful than the sanctions themselves.

If we want to live to see a truly free Cuba, the United States must maintain the trade embargo in order to decapitate the Cuban government by disallowing Castro to the income he needs to suppress the dissidents on his island. Though President Bush’s challenge was a rhetorical one, offering normalcy as a reward for compliance to human rights laws is valid, though not necessary, as the United States has active trade relations with Vietnam and China, which are both communist nations. Unlike China, Cuba has barely started to open up its economy, and what little has been done to date has been permitted with great official reluctance and with the objective of assuring the communist government's political survival. In lifting the trade embargo on Cuba, the United States would risk allotting more power to Castro’s regime and would internationally accept the human rights violations he has committed, subsequently allowing the 28,000 Cuban dissidents in jail to remain locked up without international, political consequence. Because the embargo has truly not been that bad for the Cubans, it is unrealistic to think that lifting the embargo would ease the economic struggles. Instead, the United States must maintain the embargo and, subsequently prepare for the possibility that Castro's collapse could unleash a lengthy period of social and political unrest, and perhaps even civil war, in Cuba; reinforce the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo in anticipation of attack by pro-Castro forces; and provide financial and other support to the more than 150 dissident groups within Cuba that are struggling to bring down Castro.

Bibliography

Bond, Theresa. Foreign Affairs: The Crackdown in Cuba. September/October, 2003.

Bush, George W. Radio Remarks to the People of Cuba on Cuban Independence Day, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. May 26, 2003.

Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook, www.cia.gov. 2003.

Domínguez, Jorge. NY Times: The Country Castro Will Leave Behind. July 25, 2003.

New York Times Editorial. NY Times: No Cuba Libre, No Trade. May 21, 2002.

Nordlinger, Jay. National Review: Restless in Havana. July 14, 2003.

Smith, Geri. Business Week: A New Face-Off With Cuba. May 26, 2003.

Symington, James W. National Review: Into Cuba. November 10, 2003.

RETURN TO THE ALEXTHORN.COM WRITINGS SECTION