As I’ve noted before, this is the time of year that fidel castro’s mouthpieces around the world unleash their full-scale assault on the embargo. The news services are loaded with columns criticizing the embargo and the U.S. for continuing to enforce it. Here’s one such column dissected so that you can see that there is nothing new at all.
Ricardo Gonzalez: U.S. Cuba policy works against us
By Ricardo Gonzalez
On Nov. 8, the United Nations will again debate a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo on Cuba, the longest-running such effort in history. Each of the past 14 years, the world body has voted overwhelmingly in support of Cuba’s position.
Translation: The rest world knows better than the U.S. what U.S. foreign policy should be. A typical anti-American leftist position.
Our government’s response to this consistent show of disapproval, even by our closest allies, has been to ignore it and to go several steps further. In 1992 and 1996, and again in 2004 and 2006, the U.S. in fact strengthened features and enforcement of this odious policy.
Translation: Far from caving in to pressure from countries that don’t necessarily have American or Cuban interests in mind the U.S. is actually persistent in pursuing its own policies. What chutzpah!
Notice no mention of the Cuban downing of two American civilian aircraft in 1996 resulting in the deaths of three American citizens and one resident, no mention of the sinking of a tugboat resulting in the deaths of dozens of Cubans including women and children, no mention of the black spring in 2003 when 75 Cuban opposition members and independent journalists were arrested (many of which are still in prison). You see, it’s not convenient to show that the castro regime is not moderating, that it’s as repressive as ever.
Now a task force of federal agencies is being set up to target offenders – that is, those who violate the travel ban, business restrictions or limits on remittances to relatives on the island.
The task force, composed of representatives from the FBI, Homeland Security and the Treasury Department, among others, is headed by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta of south Florida. He said the purpose of the sanctions was to “isolate the Castro regime economically … and to hasten the transition of democracy in Cuba.”
Translation: They even are taking steps to actually enforce the policy like never before. What are these people thinking?
The Cubans estimate that the embargo has cost the Cuban nation over $86 billion, considerably more than American corporations lost in Cuba due to the revolution. The embargo has sought to bring down Fidel Castro by creating conditions inside the island that will lead people to revolt, but after nearly 45 years in place, the Cuban government is firmly in control as it brings about the succession of power from Fidel to Raul Castro.
Here we go. First of all, anyone that quotes official Cuban figures loses any credibility they may have had, in my book. How exactly do they calculate those numbers and who inedepently audits them? He says that the embargo seeks to bring down Castro but alludes to the real reason it was implemented: in response to confiscation of American assets. But assuming the 86 billion dollar figure is correct you would have to calculate the present value of assets seized more than 45 years ago. And you’d have ask yourself why the embargo still exists after 45 years: because Castro has never agreed to any sort of settlement. According to Professor Tony de la Cova:
When Jimmy Carter gave his speech at the University of Havana before Castro and other government officials in May 2002, he said of the embargo:
“these restraints are not the source of Cuba’s economic problems. Cuba can trade with more than 100 countries, and buy medicines, for example, more cheaply in Mexico than in the United States.”
Carter addressed the cause of the embargo saying:
“I hope that Cuba and the United States can resolve the 40-year-old property disputes with some creativity. In many cases, we are debating ancient claims about decrepit sugar mills, an antique telephone company, and many other obsolete holdings. Most U.S. companies have already absorbed the losses, but some others want to be paid, and many Cubans who fled the revolution retain a sentimental attachment for their homes. We resolved similar problems when I normalized relations with China in 1979. I propose that our two countries establish a blue-ribbon commission to address the legitimate concerns of all sides in a positive and constructive manner.”
That’s why the U.S. and China renewed relations, because China agreed to pay the U.S. 48 cents on the dollar for all seized property in 1949. Vietnam has likewise done a property settlement.
Castro has steadfastly refused to settle accounts of seized property with the U.S. and therefore the embargo contines. The blue-ribbon commission that Carter suggested be established to deal with this issue was ignored by the Castro regime.
In this world of terrorism and nuclear threats, one would think we have more important things to worry about than Americans traveling to Cuba or Cuban-Americans sending money to help their relatives.
Yeah, why worry about gross violations of Human rights 90 miles from us when we can enjoy the beaches and have a few mojitos? Never mind that Cuba is on the State Department’s list of terrorist states. Never mind that the same leadership that wanted to create a nuclear threat to us is still in power, no matter how many years ago it was. Never mind that castro has always used Cuba’s resources to fund his pet projects of subversion, revolution and undermining American interests around the world.
The Bush administration’s obtuseness regarding Cuba is a good measure of its other failures in foreign policy and a good indication of why people loathe George Bush all over the world.
Oh yeah, and if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq and would have dropped the embargo he’d be a hero to all of those America haters?
At the end of the day, we are the greater losers in this confrontation with Cuba. By isolating the communist island, we have aided in perpetuating Castro in power and made him a hero and inspiration to millions. Furthermore, the Cuban-Americans who have supported the embargo have unwittingly helped their worst enemy.
Here’s the argument we are all too familiar with. You see it’s us that have helped castro stay in power. We are so stupid that we think keeping hard currency out of castro’s coffers hurts him when it really helps him. It’s us and not his repressive tactics that keep Cuba in virtual slavery. This argument, like all the others, completely ignores one fact. If castro and his little brother were to step down and allow their successors to make the necessary reforms the embargo would be lifted. In other words it’s in castro’s hands. The embargo will continue as long as it’s castro that continues to be obtuse.
With the exception of Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., none of the potential presidential candidates in 2008 gives any sign of leadership on this issue. That leaves it to Congress to come to its senses and take action by facilitating increased trade and eliminating the ban on travel. These two changes alone would go a long way to reduce tensions and pave the way to future progress. The U.S. must recognize Cuba as an independent and sovereign nation, one whose friendship we can win by engagement and not by threats and isolation. The more we try to orchestrate a “transition to democracy” in Cuba, the more we ensure that it will never happen.
That’s one theory. But one I don’t agree with. fidel castro has had many opportunities to negotiate an end to the embargo but he does not want to negotiate. In 47 years the only variable to the equation that has not changed is castro himself. We can and have taken a variety of measures (and non-measures) on our side but it’s obvious that as long as castro remains in power nothing will change in Cuba. For that reason it’s my theory that we should hold on to what’s left of the embargo until a new Cuban leader emerges that is willing to sit down at the table in good faith. That’s a concept that is alien to fidel.
Ricardo Gonzalez is founder and president of the Madison-Camaguey (Cuba) Sister City association and a former member of the Madison City Council.
Again according to Professor de la Cova:
“The fact that he is president of a sister city association with Cuba indicates that he travels there a lot. He has been active with pro-Castro groups since 1976.”
excellent breakdown, henry.
Henr you say” “…For that reason it’s my theory that we should hold on to what’s left of the embargo until a new Cuban leader emerges that is willing to sit down at the table in good faith. That’s a concept that is alien to fidel.
I’m tyring to follow your thinking. My questions is What if next the cuban leader, follows in castro’s footseps and does not want to sit a the table in good faith? What would be your plan then?
ray
Ray,
I’ve come to the conclusion that fidel castro is a “once in a generation” type of leader. The fact that he has been able to hold on to power despite the fact that he’s been so disastrous is almost miraculous. At least Stalin could say he beat back the German fascist hordes.
I’m convinced that everyone around fidel is waiting for the inevitable, fidel’s death, to make changes to one degree or another. The bureaucrats and generals that run things in Cuba are not like the Cuban poplulace that doesn’t know what the outside world looks like. They pay lip service to fidel and the revolution but they know that change is needed to take Cuba forward. Any leader that emerges, that has Cuba first and foremost in his mind, will recognize the disasters of the past. I’ll give you an example:
I saw a lecture from Professor Bill Messina, he’s an agrucultural economist at the University of Florida (Go Gators!) that has been studying the Cuban economy for over 10 years. He has made many trips to Cuba and consulted with Cuban economists. These are all guys that studied Marxist economics (which is an oxymoron because Marxist economies don’t work). Professor Messina said, and I quote: “They all know a market economy is the way to go.”
What does that tell you? It means that the only thing keeping them from implementing winning strategies for Cuba is fidel castro. That’s why I’m adamant about not lowering the embargo now. We will find it useful because the successor to Fidel will be able to say “I got the Yanquis to remove el bloqueo”. But he’ll only be able to say that if certain conditions are met (we all know them, the release of political prisoners and so forth).
Of course what you say is true somebody else can come along with similar ideas to fidel castro. But embargo or no embargo if that happens there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it unless we’re willing to do something we haven’t been willing to do, invade Cuba (and that’s not happening either).
But I think the entire country has fidel fatigue and someone with new ideas will be very attractive to the Cuban people.
I want to go back to fidel for a second. I think the problem that most people have in understanding Cuba is that they assume certain things about fidel. They assume that he cares about Cuba and the Cuban people. Other dictators have moved their countries forward. Agree with him or not Franco felt it was his obligation to save his country from the communists. So we see that even some dictators care about the living conditions and the plight of their people. (Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t think dictators are the answer but I recognize what we have in a handful of westernized countries is the exception and not the rule).
But fidel is a different kind of dictator. He uses the populist rhetoric and cloaks himself in nationalistic words but if you go back and really looked you’s see how he has constantly taken roads that provide no utility for his people. At first you could say that he didn’t understand that marxism was doomed to fail because it goes against human nature. But when the Soviet Union collapsed he continued to implement marxist ideas (he implement some very very basic reforms because the whole thing was going to collapse but has rolled back almost all of them once hugo’s oil started rolling in). He doesn’t choose marxist economic because they work but because they give him full control. It doesn’t matter that Cuba is a third world country as long as he has control. Cuba and the Cuban people are a tool for him to use in his true battle…against the U.S. He sees his mission in life as confronting the U.S. not leading the Cuban people. It doesn’t matter if Cuba goes up a in nuclear cloud (remember that?) as long he takes America down with him. Why he feels that way, I have my theories but they go beyond the scope of this discussion. But it’s clear that any rational leader that had the plight of his people in mind would have stepped down by now.
So we’re back to square one. I can’t guarantee that the next leader will be more benevolent than the last but you can’t guarantee me that lowering the embargo will make the current leader more benevolent than he has been in the past. I’m willing to bet that the chances of my scenario are much more likely than of yours.
There’s only one fidel, and thank God for that!
Henry: We have different perspectives on this and i hope we can discuss this rationally without resorting to name calling, since you seem like a knowledgeable and intellligent person.
I’m looking at this as your everyday american live and let live joe, a bit more sympathetic to your cause since i was born in cuba just like you and would like to see our nemesis disappear.
The problem i have with the embargo is in an intrusion on my freedom, i don’t like the goverment telling me what to do, where not to go, how to behave, i also don’t like our goverment meddling in other countries or forcing our system on them, it just doesn’t seem we have good track record of doing this recently.
It also seems to me that by keeping this policy are are creating more enemies than friends. I see your point that the embargo is the last tool that we have to deal with fidel, but at what cost.
From my perspective there are more negatives than pluses on this embargo. It seems like this embargo is like gambling in our part, hoping that it will topple fidel. But a good gambler know when hold them, when to fold them and when to walk a away.
Don’t you think that all this things need to be considered?
ray
For the record I was born in the states but I don’t think any of that should matter. If the arguments makes sense they make sense. And yes we can discuss this rationally without name calling, it’s just that you can imagine that everyone that comes here doesn’t have an honest exchange of ideas in mind.
Some come here just to antagonize and stir the pot. It gets old after a while and frankly it’s our blog and we aren’t going to allow it to be hijacked. That doesn’t mean we are against free speech. Free speech means free to say what you want but necessarily here (to use Reagan’s phrase: “we paid for this microphone”.
For example someone makes racist or antisemitic statements they get bounced and banned. Val has his criteria but as you can see there is no comment moderation here in the sense that comments appear immediately and don’t have to be approved. I have a different policy on my blog, because I’m less patient. For example anyone that cites wikipedia or granma as a source get’s their comment vetoed by me.
Now about your points.
The government intrudes on our rights every day from the mundane to the extraordinary. You can’t drive faster than a certain speed, you have to wear a seatbelt, you can’t carry liquids or gels of more than 3 oz onto an airplane and you have to give anywhere between 15% and 40% of your earnings to the government. We give up some control of our personal lives to meet some sort of societal goal. I don’t agree with all of the goals but there’s a process to determine goals are attempted to be achieved.
You feel that it’s not right that we can’t travel legally to Cuba (except under certain conditions). Well I think it’s not right that a 20 year old soldier who lost his leg in Iraq can’t legally buy a beer. But our elected representatives have decided that that’s the way it is. We can lobby them to change it. Though my example probably won’t be very likely to change anyone’s mind even though it’s a true “human” example to borrow the phrase that was used in the other thread.
You say you don’t want our government meddling in other countries’ affairs. Well that’s an argument that could be used for an extreme form of isolationism. We would have never entered either world war. We meddled in Japan after the big one and today it’s one of the most advanced and democratic countries in the world (and one of the most pacificistic by they way, I was reflecting on that while I watched Flags of our Fathers) nobody would have predicted that the barbaric japanese (and they were barbaric) would turn it around. The Cuba/Iraq comparison is a non-starter in my opinion. I mean culturally Iraq and Cuba couldn’t be more opposite. You know for a fact that most Cubans want to be Americans at this point. But more than that Cubans and Americans have always had an affinity for each other.
And then there is the original basis of the embargo. Why should we lower it without some sort of arrangement for compensation as Jimmy Carter was quoted in the text of this post?
A key for a successful post castro Cuba has to be foreign investment and in order to get that investment there have to be rules to the game that guarantee certain rights to the investors, namely that their investments won’t be subject to capricious confiscations.
I understand family separation. My mother left Cuba in 1962 and never saw her father again (he died in the late 80’s). I never met him. You don’t understand the desire I have to visit Cuba. But to me it would be wrong. Just as wrong as going to frolic on South Africa’s beaches during apartheid. Those are my personal thoughts. Why should you be subject to them? Well because our representatives in congress have political juice and like it or not the majority of Cuban American voters still support the embargo. As I’ve stated before this is the way government works. We don’t have a referendum on every law. We have reps that go and negotiate and compromise on our behalf. Sometimes we are on the side that wins on a particular issue and sometimes we’re on the side that loses. That’s life. But there are a lot of faulty arguments about the embargo out there like the false dichotomy that if the embargo didn’t work then removing it must work.
Let me explain something to you. I wasn’t always for the embargo. When I graduated college (and I was as much of an anti-communist then as I am now 15 years later) I thought that if we only lowered the embargo that the “Americanization of the Cuban people” would make Castro irrelevant.
As I studied the issue I realized that that’s a huge oversimplification. In Cuba there is only one entity that Americans can do business with. If you want to build a hotel in the Dominican Republic for example you have to buy the land, probably from a private owner. Then you have to hire an architect and a builder. When the hotel is built you have to staff and maintain it. You are dealing with countless private parties all with profit motives.
In Cuba all the companies are owned by the Cuban government. You do business in Cuba and the government is your partner. Since the government also sets all the labor regulations and other restrictions you are playing by the rules that your business partner sets. Any profits go to the coffers of the government to carry out whatever policies they see fit. Except that in Cuba the policies are to stifle dissent, terrorize the populace, etc. etc. More resources means more ability to carry out these policies. Ask yourself this, we didn’t have travel restrictions with Chile under Pinochet but if we did, do you think the “liberals” that oppose the Cuban embargo would have been so quick to argue to get rid of them? Fat chance! And there were private businesses and much more freedom under Pinochet than in Cuba under castro (again I’m not excusing pinochet but if we are going to talk about dictorships we have to acknowledge that they aren’t all the same). These same liberals advocated sanctions and travel boycotts to south africa. But they give left wing dictatorships a pass if not their full-fledged support.
As I said before, I have no doubt that removing the embargo will marginally improve the economuc lives of some Cubans (while vastly improving the lives of the bureaucrats in charge of the affected sectors of the economy) but it won’t do anything to bring about substantial political change in Cuba.
As far as making enemies because of our Cuba policies goes, look I can’t control what other people think. If they see things differently that’s up to them but let’s face it there are a lot of countries out there that would hate us no matter what we do. If I think what I’m doing is right, I can’t change my policy to appease those that I know are wrong, those that are swayed by propaganda.
Lastly you asked if those things should be considered. Yes of course they should be considered and they have been by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush and they have all determined that it’s better to stay the course and keep the pressure and the onus on castro.
If it’s a big enough issue for you, write your congressman. Vote for Hillary or whoever else the Democrats might nominate in 2008. I’m hoping it’s moot by then.
Like I said to you earlier I don’t know that the next guy is going to be better but it’s hard to imagine him being worse (see I use a logical fallacy myself sometimes:arguing from incredulity, but I’ll take that one over the false dichotomy any day)
Henry: for the record i’m not a democrat nor repulican. i used to like the reps but they seem to have lost their conservative roots, they are becomming more like a church than a political party.
The question i’m trying to answer for myself is As an american citizen why should i support this embargo policty. I’m going to give you my scorecard
1) Embargo as a tool against castro – ok you won me over on this one. i can see your reasoning and can’t argue against them.
2) Restricting my ability to travel – sorry you have not persuaded me on this. Your argument that we constantly give up freedoms is true, but is not a winning argument. My question to you is why should i be willing to give up this freedom to travel to cuba? I’m free to travel to other hell-holes, why not cuba?
3) American Intervention – sorry no cigar. Here’s my reasoning. From the vietnam war to today do you think that we have good record in intervening in other countries? And Based on the current events do you think our present elected official can be succesful in intervening in cuba? This guys can’t even agree in protecting our ports and borders do you expect them to agree in a cuba policy?
Let reason together
ray
Ray,
I understand your trouble with the travel restrictions. But here’s the thing, the embargo is a trade embargo. Travel related expenses are trade and for Cuba, where it’s the most important industry, an embargo without those restrictions is no embargo at all. I suppose you could have traveled to Iraq during the time of the sanctions but Iraq’s business was oil not travel.
By the way technically it’s not the travel part that is illegal. It’s the spending of U.S. legal tender that is illegal. If travel restrictions were completely dropped tomorrow it would mean a significant increase in revenue to the Cuban government. It’s a shot in the arm for their tourist industry. They won’t tell you this but many European travelers have returned back to Europe disappointed by their very expensive and sub-standard vacations. Cuba is looking to get a bunch of new suckers to overpay for poorly maintained accommodations as yet another lifeline so the regime can hang on a little longer.
As far as intervention, I’m not talking about an invasion or a war like Iraq or Vitenam but more like a re-building effort like the Marshall plan or in Japan. I think that if we are going to have an embargo then we should use it as leverage to get the Cuban government to the table.
But as I’ve stated, a fidel-led government will never come to the table in good faith. I’m hoping for a Gorbachev type to come out of the post-fidel mess. We had reasons to doubt Gorbachev’s sincerity but eventually it became clear that he was going to stick to his word. Let deeds speak louder than words. When a successor makes decisions in good faith like freedom for the political prisoners we will know that the successor is serious about opening Cuba up.
Look it’s not about me convincing you or you convincing me, we’ve already formulated our opinions. I just want people to know that there are sound reasons to be on our side of the issue. Someone said that Americans, in polls, say they are against the embargo. That’s probably true, and that’s why we are here writing what we are writing: to try to get people who aren’t necessarily informed about the issue something to think about.
It’s not as simple as we’re just reactionary or we are batistianos or any of the other insults that are hurled our way. It just so happens that all of the contributors here agree on the embargo but it wasn’t a requirement to join the club. And it’s not that we don’t want to give “equal time” we feel that we are the “equal time” in comparison with all the MSM stories and columns about the embargo. We’re using the only tools at our disposal to get our reasons and our arguments out there. Unfortunately for us there’s plenty of people espousing the opposite view. A lot of them are like you, genuinely against the regime, but you have to know that among the anti-embargo ranks are scores of leftists and castro apologists and castro agents. Have you ever thought about who is on the same side of the argument as you (including castro himself)?
This debate is kind of moot anyway because Bush will veto any attempt to weaken the embargo and he still has 27 or 28 months in office. By that time fidel should be dead and buried based on a reasonable assumption that the media reports of his terminal cancer are true.
I wish you well Ray. The only thing I can tell you is that the embargo is the law of the land right now, like it or not. I don’t like Roe v. wade but I have to live with it until something else happens.
Ray,
Let’s see why this country would want to limit your perceived “right to travel”.
Let’s make it simple. How about aiding the enemy by giving them funds when you travel to Cuba, or any other known enemy of this country?
If you aid the enemy and it is against the security of the U.S. Its a no brainer.
Very simple.
The algorithmn is simple:
No castro, no embargo. castro in power, embargo in force.