Why America should lift its Cuban embargo

Contemporary Review, Oct, 1994 by Ruben Berrios

FOR more than thirty years the United States has maintained an economic embargo against Cuba. Essentially the embargo restricts trade, prohibits the sale of food and medicine, and makes travel to Cuba illegal. The embargo was tightened in October 1992, with the passing of the 'Cuba Democracy Act'. The law is intended to isolate the Castro regime and includes sanctions on third nations and foreign affiliates of US companies doing business with Cuba. Further restrictions were imposed this August. These policy measures added to the abrupt ending of all Soviet -- now Russian -- economic, technical and military aid to the Castro regime, which had already ignited a precipitous decline of the Cuban economy since 1990. In turn, the relationship between the Cuban state and society is undergoing considerable strain, and in August there was even a small protest in Havana against Castro.

At present the Cuban government is struggling to keep its fragile economy afloat. The rationing of basic staples and other consumer goods has been intensified and the lack of spare parts and fuel, previously imported from the socialist bloc, has to a large extent paralyzed economic activity. The consequences for employment are obviously adverse.

The trade embargo grew out of a geopolitical concern that no longer exists. Cuba is no longer supporting insurgency abroad. Its troops are out of Angola, Ethiopia, Somalia and other African countries. The same is true for Cuba's involvement in Latin America and the Caribbean. Hence Cuba has ceased to be a military threat to the United States and any of its hemispheric neighbours. Accordingly, the long-lasting US policy of economic and political isolation of Cuba, and the recent intensification of the embargo, no longer reflect the current circumstances. The Cold War has come to an end and Cuban society is bearing an enormous cost.

For the current Administration the priority has shifted from the 'threat' argument toward the reinstatement of democracy. The United States hoped for greater polarization between government and the population but this could result in a violent social conflict. In this sense, the 'Cuba Democracy Act' is no longer a viable option for pursuing democracy and democratic change in Cuba. Rather, the policy has led to an escalation of repression and human rights violations by the Castro regime as the economic decline and its social consequences worsen. The tightening of the embargo has also helped the Cuban government to stir feelings of solidarity by reviving images of a tiny, heroic country fighting a hostile Goliath. Recently, the Administration completed a review of its travel bans and decided to lift the bans, but not for Cuba. The current US policies are not without a price for both US leadership among the Latin American nations which maintain friendly relations with Cuba and American corporations which could profit from trading and investing in Cuba.

Recent reports published by the Inter-American Dialogue, the United Nations, the Rand Corporation, The Twentieth Century Fund, the Centre for International Policy, and the Army War College, advocate lifting the embargo. Each report endorses a loosening of the embargo in return for piecemeal concessions from Fidel Castro. Even the UN has concluded that far from encouraging political or economic reform, the embargo is doing the opposite.

Since the Administration lifted the embargo on Vietnam many people are asking: Why not Cuba? If the trend of the 1990s has been toward greater openness and dialogue with former enemies, with Cuba we have taken the opposite tack. If the Administration argues for more free trade as a way of promoting the development of democratic institutions in Mexico, China, Vietnam, the former Soviet Union and the countries of East and Central Europe, then it is not giving the same chance to Cuba. The only barrier that has discouraged the lifting of the embargo is a Cuban-American constituency that votes and has given political donations to the past five American administrations.

Reversing the 'Cuba Democracy Act' and facilitating trade in areas critical for the Cuban economy could be a first step in the process of phasing out the economic embargo. This action will be the basis upon which to establish a dialogue with the Castro regime, intended to work out the reinstatement of democracy and other pending issues in exchange for subsequent relaxation of the embargo. This proposal builds on encouraging indications that the Cuban leadership is willing to talk about important issues. Havana has recently offered to discuss issues such as US nationals' expropriation claims dating back to 1959 and compensation of US firms; the issue of the 'undesirables' or 'Marielitos' still awaiting trial in US jails; drug interdiction; co-operation on environmental and metereological issues; blocked Cuban assets; etc. The Cuban government's dogmatism clearly has lost strength vis-a-vis the pragmatism required under the new circumstances. Furthermore, the traditional US arguments against Soviet influence in the region and intervention of Cuba in Africa and Central America are no longer an issue.