“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the
state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams
Claims and Facts About Economic Sanctions in Cuba
In the midst of a
human rights crackdown in Cuba there is an effort underway to obtain the unilateral lifting of economic sanctions on the Castro dictatorship. United States Senator Marco Rubio
has expressed concern "that U.S. officials reportedly met with Cuban
representatives in Bali to discuss the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba."Coincidentally, at the same time academics, ideologues and The New York Times over the past few days, have trotted out their old arguments. Their argument can be broken down into seven claims. Sadly, they fail to take into account some inconvenient facts in order to refine their case and improve the public debate:
CLAIM #1: Castro brothers have used the embargo
as an excuse of their disastrous misrule in Havana.
FACTS: One of the policy objectives of the Castro regime both internally and
internationally is to portray itself as David against Goliath. Despite
having normal trade relations, Hugo Chavez has undertaken
the same kind of campaign
in Venezuela without an economic sanctions in place. Often times the U.S. State Department has fallen short
of explaining the sanctions policy fully or for that matter defending it
in a vigorous manner at international forums. This has allowed the
Cuban government a free hand in a sustained campaign to portray itself
as a victim blaming all of its economic woes on the American blockade on
Cuba. To believe that the regime would not continue its Anti-American campaign of blame with new grievances is naive.
CLAIM #2: The embargo has
hurt the Cuban people.
FACT:
According to both the
Council on Foreign Relations and
Global Edge remittances play a major role in the Cuban economy and
have for some time. Reliable sources peg remittances total from $800 million to $1.5 billion per year, with most coming from families in the United States. During the Obama Administration
regulations have been furthered loosened which means that this number may now be substantially higher. Medical equipment and pharmaceuticals can also be sold to the Cuban regime with the limitation that the goods
don't go to the Cuban military or biotechnology industry and are not used for torture or re-export. During the Bush Administration the United States was Cuba's
fifth leading trade partner and now is
seventh in the world.
CLAIM #3: The embargo has
failed to remove the Castro brothers from power.
FACTS: The embargo was not instituted to remove the Castro brothers from power. Due to the
Bay of Pigs debacle that consolidated Castro's rule and the
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis that ruled out a direct U.S. invasion, economic sanctions were put in place
not to eliminate the Castro regime but limit its ability to expand into the rest of the hemisphere and to force the Soviet Union to
expend large sums in keeping the Castro regime afloat which ended up contributing to the USSR's demise in 1991 due to the economic dissatisfaction and hardship suffered by Russians. The Kennedy brothers sought other means to
end the Castro regime in Operation Mongoose that were shutdown after Robert Kennedy left the White House in 1964.
CLAIM #4: The embargo
harms U.S. businesses and farmers
FACTS: Since 2000 U.S. businesses and farmers have sold
$4,318,906.00 worth of goods to the Castro regime. Meanwhile countries that do not have sanctions in place, which includes restrictions on granting credits such as Russia, Venezuela, China, Japan, Spain, Argentina, France, Romania, Brazil, Italy, and Mexico are
owed billions of dollars. Russia is
forgiving $29 billion dollars of debt that the Castro regime owed it and Mexico is
waiving 487 million dollars of debt owed by the regime in Havana.
CLAIM #5: Castro
never assassinated or tried to assassinate a US official.
FACTS: Cuban spy network
broken up by the FBI in 1998 planned terrorist actions on U.S.soil including the murder of a U.S. intelligence official in Florida.
There is plenty of
circumstantial evidence
that the Castro regime had President John F. Kennedy
assassinated in retaliation for attempts to have Fidel Castro assassinated by the
Kennedy Administration. Not to mention the threat
made to an AP journalist against the Kennedy brothers by Fidel Castro weeks prior to JFK's assassination: “Let Kennedy and his
brother Robert take care of themselves since they too can be the victims
of an attempt which will cause their death.”
CLAIM #6: The embargo
limits the civil liberties of Americans to travel to Cuba.
FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court on two occasion first in
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) in a 6-3 decision and secondly in
Regan v. Wald - 468 U.S. 222 (1984) in a 5-4 decision affirmed that the State Department and the President can restrict travel under certain circumstances and does in fact limit the civil liberties of Americans.
CLAIM #7: Cato
in 2005 cited a 1998 report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency that concluded,
“Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to
other countries in the region.” The report declared Cuba’s military
forces “residual” and “defensive.”
FACTS: In 2012
Cuban, Iranian and Venezuelan officials met in Mexico to discuss cyber
attacks on U.S. soil allegedly seeking information about nuclear power
plants in the United States. In 2013 it was revealed that the Castro regime was providing weapons and ammunition to North Korea in violation of international sanctions. The weapons and ammunition were intercepted in Panama when they tried to smuggle them through. Finally, the 1998 report, cited by Cato in 2005, and circulated over twitter today that claims that Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States was prepared by Ana Belen Montes, an agent of the Castro regime who successfully penetrated he highest levels of the U.S. intelligence apparatus and who was implicated in providing information that led to the death of an American soldier.
Room for improvement
U.S. sanctions policy with regards to the dictatorship in Cuba was about
containment of the exportation of the Cuban model throughout the
hemisphere, and during the Cold War having Cuba serve as a drain on
Soviet resources that contributed to its eventual bankruptcy. In the
post Cold War years it shifted once again with a focus on human rights.
The failure of the United States to
do this
in China, Cambodia, Venezuela and Vietnam with their deteriorating
human rights situation is regrettable. The policies in these other countries are
profoundly immoral and ignore human rights concerns. Instead
policies in China, Cambodia, Venezuela and Vietnam f
avor of short-term corporate economic interests that run counter to the interests of the majority of U.S. citizens
not to mention the long term economic well-being of the United States.
However, there are
always opportunities for improving policies- in the case of Cuba- seeking out approaches that make the people, and not the
dictatorship, the priority. For example on August 4, 2011 the Obama
Administration announced a ban on visas for people who the State
Department finds have been involved in human rights violations.
Unfortunately, since then we have seen that human rights violators of
the Castro regime are immigrating to the United States. If this ban were
applied vigorously to the hardline elements of the Cuban regime it
would be positive step that would protect dissidents by holding abusers
accountable and providing a penalty, but this ban also needs to be
expanded to follow the path taken by the European Union when dealing
with the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. Banning the relatives of the hard
line elements of the dictatorship from visiting the United States would
create greater pressures on the regime for change.
Unfortunately, what has gone on in practice is that the
children and relatives of the hard liners have an easy time obtaining visas to the United States while the families of dissidents have a more difficult time. That needs to change for their to be hope that the President's Cuba policy have a positive outcome. Policy makers should take a
closer look at Burma were a principled policy that included sanctions moved things in a positive direction.
Posts
