July 15, 2004

Cuban Embargo

A little piece of news today gives me an opportunity to discuss the Cuban embargo:

In a rare exception to long-standing American foreign policy, U.S. officials have approved a small California biotech company's deal with the Cuban government to develop three experimental cancer drugs created in Havana.

This actually (and surprisingly) comes at a time when the administration has been making the embargo tougher (despite Congressional attempts to ease it). The apparent theory is that the less U.S. money that flows to Cuba the quicker the Communist regime will fall.

However, when the embargo was first enacted in 1963, there were three main objectives: 1) Make it more costly for the Soviets to maintain an alliance with Cuba, 2) Reduce the amount of money and resources that Cuban could put into revolutionary movements in Latin America (attempting to spark revolts in the entire Southern Hemisphere), and 3) Punish the Cuban government for nationalizing privately owned properties and businesses without compensation.

It was the stance of the U.S. that if these conditions were met, then we would move toward normalized relations with Cuba.

Let's take a look at the score card:

First, the Soviets aren't a problem anymore (no need to expound on this). Secondly, Cuba hasn't been in the business of attempting to overthrow Latin American governments since the late 1960's (and it no longer has troops in Africa). Castro decided that it was in his best interest to be friendly to his neighbors and open trade relations with them. Most responded in kind (aside from the U.S., of course). Thirdly, compensation agreements were eventually made with countries that had claims against privatized properties (again, the exception being the U.S.).

All of these original requirements were met by the early 90's, but the embargo has only been toughened. Why do we toughen the embargo with Cuba yet at the same time we continue to open up more trade with an even worse Communist regime in China?

In a recent Cigar Aficionado article, the following was stated:

The policy has failed. If anything, the U.S. intransigence has given Cuban President Fidel Castro the pretext to blame his internal problems on the United States, and has actually slowed down any significant change in Cuba.

Exactly.

I believe that it's time for an end to the Cuban embargo (or at the very least an easing). After 40 years, the only way to get rid of Castro is to let him die of old age, and the only thing the embargo is doing now is making it worse on the people of Cuba. If the U.S. opens up its economic doors to the island, freedom will follow.

If you say it won't work, then all I can say is that the 40-year-old embargo isn't working either.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

They should, at the least, ease the embargo on the cigar front.

Posted by: Jakester at July 16, 2004 08:03 AM