By Doug Bandow View all 13 articles by Doug Bandow Published 04/14/09  
Printer-friendly version
Trade and investment normally draw peoples together, but Washington routinely bans trade and investment to punish foreign countries. Burma, Cuba, and North Korea are prime targets of U.S. economic sanctions. Unfortunately, in all three cases Washington has hurt the peoples of those nations more than their governments. It is time for Washington to change policy, starting with Cuba. The U.S. has effectively been at war with Cuba for a half century, since Fidel Castro's communist revolution. Other than America's support for the Bay of Pigs invasion, however, Washington's weapon of choice has been economic. The U.S. government first reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960 after the Castro regime began expropriating American property. The Soviet Union stepped into the resulting gap, increasing its purchases. In 1962 the Kennedy administration expanded limits on trade to punish Cuba for its alliance with Moscow. Washington added travel restrictions in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1964, at America's behest, the Organization of American States imposed multilateral sanctions (which were dropped 11 years later). In March 1977 President Jimmy Carter refused to renew the travel ban and lifted the restriction on spending money in Cuba. But President Ronald Reagan quickly reimposed the limits. They were subsequently changed to allow travel but prevent the expenditure of any funds without a Treasury Department license. Congress subsequently reinforced the embargo in 1992 and 1996, even voting to penalize foreign firms operating in Cuba. The Bush II administration tightened the economic screws even further, cutting the number of licenses for Cuban travel, increasing prosecution of those visiting Cuba illegally, and limiting travel by and remittances from Cuban-Americans. Another 13 years have passed and the communist government remains in control. But now President Barack Obama is relaxing restrictions on Cuban-Americans and Capitol Hill is moving to ease sanctions even further. The omnibus spending bill loosened restrictions on business travel and agricultural sales; a bipartisan coalition has introduced legislation to lift the travel prohibition altogether. Former Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar is pressing for an even broader reconsideration of present policy. Members of the Black Caucus recently visited Cuba where they met with Fidel Castro, who said Havana wants a dialogue with Washington. At the same time, Cuba faces its own political transition. Castro is still alive, but no longer in charge. His brother and successor, Raul, is not much younger; in a few years all the revolutionary leaders will be gone. Even now only ruthless repression keeps them in control and a recent purge of younger officials suggests that the transition could be rocky. If Cuba ever mattered geopolitically it was only during the Cold War as a potential Soviet base. Today the Castro regime is a human tragedy, not a security threat. Even if the embargo was worth trying a half century ago, it makes no sense today. The embargo has failed. It further impoverished Cuban citizens, but the government has survived. After the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and end of Soviet subsidies for Havana many people hoped for -- and even predicted -- the imminent collapse of the Castro dictatorship. But the regime only tightened its grip. Yet embargo advocates continue to sound like a broken record, declaring that the sanctions failed because they weren't tough enough. So successive Congresses and presidents tightened restrictions on Cuba. As Washington tried harder, it lost support elsewhere in the world. Americans cannot travel to or invest in Cuba, but Europeans have enthusiastically filled the void. In November the U.S. was joined by only Israel and Palau in opposing a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the embargo. Doing more of the same in the coming years will only yield the same result: nothing. Cuban communism could limp along for years or even decades. After all, November marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the sugar cane barrier remains as high as ever. The embargo's defenders have been reduced to insisting that trade be prohibited until Cuba democratizes -- that is, when the regime decides to yield power. But dictators rarely surrender voluntarily, and the embargo makes real reform less likely. Unfortunately, sanctions appear to have strengthened the regime. Socialist economics condemned Cuba to poverty, but U.S. sanctions allow the Castro regime to shift blame to America. On a (legal) trip to Cuba, I met human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the "sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba." Another impact of U.S. policy has been to enhance Cuba's global influence. Indeed, Washington's fixation on Fidel Castro helped turn him into an international figure. Vicki Huddleston who ran America's quasi-embassy in Havana, says that Castro used the embargo, "making us the Goliath and Cubathe David." If he had not been seen as standing resolutely against Yankee imperialism, he would have been largely ignored, just one of many thugs -- though an uncommonly long-winded one -- ruling small impoverished nations around the globe. It is time for policymakers to ask the simple question: If 50 years of embargo have not worked, why do they expect another decade or two or three of sanctions to work? In fact, the embargo long ago ceased to be treated as an issue of foreign policy. Rather, it is almost pure politics: support the embargo or risk losing Florida's electoral votes. But Cuban-Americans are moving away from their support for today's failed policy, and Barack Obama not only carried Florida while advocating relaxing sanctions, but he would have won the presidency even had he not carried Florida. A new political climate invites a new policy response. No more half measures. Congress and the president should drop the embargo. Americans should be free to visit and trade with Cuba. There should be no government subsidies, whether in the form of trade subsidies or foreign aid. But individuals and companies should be free to cut their own deals. Would this strategy transform the island nation? There are no guarantees, though foreign contact has helped spur liberalization elsewhere. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has consistently failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Relaxing U.S. policy would likely make that day come sooner. Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty |
Also by Doug Bandow:
What to Do with China? 01/26/10
Abandoning the Interventionist Temptation in Afghanistan 12/28/09
Constitutional Crisis in Honduras -- Who Cares? 11/11/09
Alliances as Transmission Belts of War 10/21/09
Why Are "We" Defending South Korea? 09/08/09
View all 13 articles by Doug Bandow
Discuss this article (12 comments)
