Lifting the U.S.-Cuban Embargo: A Case of Current Events

For almost half a century, the United States has had an irrational and often illogical foreign policy concerning the island of Cuba. At no time in the US’ history has any country been singled out in such a negative manner; even Russia, representing in many minds the former Soviet Union, and arguably the US’ arch-enemy for much of the twentieth century, has in the past decade and a half enjoyed an opening of diplomatic and economic relations between the two countries. Why, then, are animosities generated at the height of the Cold War still fueling a harmful US policy towards a tiny island? Recent events have shown that Cuba has much to offer, both to the US and to the global community, and that improved relations between the US and Cuba would greatly benefit both countries. With the health and continuing rule of Cuba’s President Castro now being called into question, it is imperative that the US begin considering ways to increase ties between itself and Cuba, before it becomes too late.

One reason for the US to consider easing relations with Cuba is because in the past several weeks, it has become overwhelmingly clear that the global community simply does not support the US economic embargo of the island. According the Associated Press, as noted on the Latin American Data Base on October 20th, an October 15th Latin American Summit meeting in Spain unanimously called upon the US to lift its embargo on Cuba. The pressure to remove the embargo is not limited to Latin America, however: as Evelyn Leopold reported in the Washington Post on November 8th, 2005, a vote in the UN that same day showed that, of the UN member states, 182 supported a lifting of the economic embargo, while only 4 states supported keeping the embargo in place. Clearly, other countries see the US embargo as being unfair and unnecessary, and support its removal.

A lifting of the embargo would have serious economic consequences for Cuba, allowing businesses in the US and elsewhere to do business on and with the island. This economic opening would certainly benefit the country, which, in the past two years, has experienced a blow to its agricultural sector from a prolonged drought, seriously injuring the sugar industry. Indeed, according to a September 20th, 2005 article in the Carribean and Central American Report, the sugar industry, which used to provide Cuba’s “most important export for more than a century” is now being dismantled, and only produced 1.3 million tons of sugar in 2005, a marked decrease from the 8 million tons produced in 1990. Despite agricultural problems, Cuba’s Castro has claimed a 9% growth rate for 2005, a figure which, according to a September 6th, 2005 article in Latin American Economy and Business, is artificially high. In fact, the same article identifies a number of problems with Cuba’s economy, including an increasing reliance on the cheap oil provided by Venezuela to keep the economy from collapsing. A lifting of the embargo would allow US oil companies to do business with Cuba, perhaps relieving some pressure, and would open American markets up to Cuba’s nickle deposits, which, according to the Latin American Economy and Business article, are plentiful.

Of course, lifting the US embargo would not just benefit Cuba’s economy; the quality of life for the average Cuban could improve dramatically. The US embargo stipulates that Americans are not allowed to travel in Cuba as tourists, depriving the country of the vast amount of income associated with tourism; while certainly boosting the economy, money generated through tourism would also give Cubans who work in the informal sector, such as street vendors, more personal wealth with which to improve their lives. Additionally, making it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba would give humanitarian groups much more access to poor communities, and more opportunities to provide aid. Admittedly, some aid groups have worked around the embargo, such as the one reported on by Vanessa Arrington in a September 30th, 2005 Associated Press article which details a group building playgrounds for poor Cuban children. As outlined in the article, however, the restrictions placed upon such groups are many: the Americans building playgrounds, for instance, are not allowed to engage in any tourist behavior while in Cuba, such as going to the beach; they must spend all their time building the playground. Opening travel restrictions would allow those people who traveled with humanitarian groups to also be tourists, putting more money into the economy and possibly drawing more volunteers to humanitarian efforts.

Of course, easing travel restrictions would work both ways. Making it easier to travel between the countries would most likely cause a decrease in the number of Cubans trying to enter the country illegally by boat. Additionally, once there were more legal ways for Cubans to come to America, there would be no more need to enforce the rule which allows Cubans arriving on American soil to stay in America, and those who are intercepted at sea to be turned back. This would in fact be much safer for many Cubans wishing to enter the US; according to an October 18th, 2005 Associated Press article in the Washington Post, a six-year-old Cuban boy drowned after the ship he was being smuggled into the country on overturned while trying to escape the US Coastguard. This is simply an example of the many lives lost by Cubans trying to sneak past the Coastguard; if travel restrictions were eased, and more legal venues were provided, such tragedies could perhaps be avoided.

Another reason the US embargo should be lifted is because it would make it easier for the US itself to give aid to Cuba. The island, sitting directly in the path of late-summer, early-fall hurricanes, has often been subjected to natural disasters which truly devastate the country. An Associated Press article by Vanessa Arrington appearing in the October 25th, 2005 Washington Post attests to this, telling of the effects of Hurricane Wilma: “…its ferocious waves transformed the island’s capital city for a day, ripping off chunks of the famous Malecon seawall and flooding many of Havana’s most prominent streets.” As has been the case with many natural disasters before Hurricane Wilma, the US did in fact offer aid to Cuba; what made this particular case unique is that Cuba accepted the aid. According to an October 28th, 2005 article by Anita Snow appearing in USA Today, the acceptance of aid by Cuba was unusual: “Cuba has routinely turned down American offers of assistance during disasters over the years.” Fidel Castro stressed, however, that he “[had] not solicited international aid”, and was simply looking to strengthen aid efforts between the US and Cuba. If the embargo was lifted, perhaps Castro would feel more open to accepting US aid, which would undoubtedly help the Cuban people.

Lifting the embargo would also have a beneficial effect in terms of international aid for other countries around the world. Cuba itself has not been lax when it comes to responding to disasters: according to an article appearing on the LADB on August 8th, 2005, “Cuba is well-known throughout the world for sending highly competent doctors to serve populations that the local associations neglect.” The article explains how Cuba has helped train and educate 1600 new doctors from poor countries who will return to their homelands and use the skills they learned to help their communities. This program has been very successful, as have other forms of international aid initiated by Cuba. The Cuban newspaper Gramma on November 16th, 2005 reported that over 1000 lives were saved in Guatemala following a tropical storm when 600 Cuban doctors were sent to the country: “…they began arriving [there] in groups beginning on October 8 by virtue of an offer made by the Cuban government to help alleviate the suffering caused by the devastating hurricane.” Unfortunately, aid from Cuba is not always accepted, even when refusing the aid has harmed people; such has been the case in Honduras, according to an LABD article appearing September 1st, 2001. The Honduran government “has taken steps to expel Cuban doctors working in areas where local doctors have declined to serve,” reports the article, under pressure from the Honduran medical community. Additionally, the Cuban offer to provide doctors to the US following Hurricane Katrina was also unappreciated: according to an Associated Press article by Anita Snow on September 8th, 2005, US officials declined to accept the help of over 1500 Cuban doctors, claiming that the medical needs of New Orleans were being met. If the trade embargo was not in place, perhaps the US would be more comfortable accepting aid from Cuba, possibly saving many lives; the US acceptance could in fact influence other countries, such as Honduras, to accept aid as well.

The reason it is important to begin considering lifting the trade embargo now is due to the failing health of Cuba’s president, Fidel Castro. A November 16th, 2005 Miami Herald article by Pablo Bachlet and Frances Robles reports that the CIA has determined that “…Castro suffers from Parkinson’s disease…” and “…has warned U.S. policymakers to be ready for trouble if the 79-year-old ruler’s health erodes over the next few years.” According to the article, the death of Castro could lead to an unstable Cuba; this could cause many problems for US, including an influx of poor Cuban refugees if serious economic trouble should befall the island, or an outflow of rich Cuban exiles in Florida returning to claim property on the island, perhaps initiating a violent episode. If the US was to begin efforts to lift the embargo now, the country would stand in a much better position to influence the situation in Cuba in the event of Castro’s death, perhaps helping to ensure political stability for the island.

Clearly, the recent events in Cuba have shown that the US economic embargo is outdated, and, more importantly, harmful to both Cuba and the US. The international community has condemned the embargo, and, it is not entirely unreasonable to imagine other Latin American countries trying to punish the US for it: simply look at Venezuela. Lifting the embargo would definitely remove one of the country’s main arguments with the US. The Cuban economy would certainly benefit if it had even limited access to American markets, and likewise, American businesses would benefit from access to Cuban markets. Both countries would benefit under relaxed travel restrictions. Humanitarian aid would be much easier for both countries to give and receive; certainly, 1500 Cuban doctors in New Orleans would have helped with public health, just as US aid following Hurricane Wilma would have helped with rebuilding. Finally, with Castro’s health called into question, the political future of Cuba is uncertain; the US will need as much influence as possible on the island to ensure its interests are represented. Lifting the embargo will certainly help both countries, and should be done as soon as possible.