Cuba Embargo Does Not Give US Leverage -- It Harms American Interests
Later in the day, I plan to grade the various public statements from leading American politicians about US-Cuba relations in the wake of Fidel Castro's statement that he will not return to Cuba's presidency after February 24th.
But one criteria I will use is whether they evince any humility at all about the fact that America's many decades old embargo failed to alter the political path of the Cuban government.
I will grade on the basis of whether these politicians are seeing and responding to reality or blinded by a perversion of ideology and the calculation that they think will help them with the vote in Miami but which undermines US national interests.
Lexington Institute Senior Fellow Anya Landau French -- a former senior staff member on the Senate Finance Committee -- has this great article out today on the Washington Post's site, "Castro's Departure Means the US Failed".
I have one big quibble with it -- but the piece is excellent overall. Here's the lead in:
Fidel Castro leaving office on his own terms is not the kind of change that successive American presidents envisioned for Cuba. In fact, it's a sign that U.S. efforts to isolate that country and bring down its socialist government have failed. It's a sign that those efforts should be revisited.Despite a 46-year U.S. embargo, Cuba today is anything but a pariah state. Canada, China and Spain have made major investments in the country over the last decade, particularly in tourism, nickel and energy. Venezuela continues to trade cut-rate oil for Cuban doctors. And the island remains a popular destination for vacationers from around the world.
These relationships have helped the Cuban economy grow -- 7 percent last year, according to CIA estimates. Moreover, they helped prevent the frustration-fueled overthrow that U.S. leaders long hoped would end Castro's regime. In effect, treating Cuba as an all-or-nothing proposition netted the United States nothing. Our interests have gone unserved and our ideals unmet.
But while Castro's departure is playing out differently from expectations, it still provides an opportunity. And the U.S. can either continue a policy rooted in ineffective sanctions or tailor its policy to the new possibilities of post-Fidel Cuba.
Some countries friendly to the United States are already moving ahead. Spain has initiated a human rights dialogue with Cuba. Brazil's President Lula da Silva, who recently offered Cuba a $1-billion line of credit, provides the island an alternative to its dependence on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
There are many steps the next U.S. president could take, short of offering economic aid or normalizing trade relations, that could increase our influence in Cuba without giving up leverage associated with the embargo.
My quibble is with the last line above: without giving up leverage associated with the embargo.
I think that one of the realities that needs to be confronted is that when I was in Havana, I met some Israelis involved with managing Cuban citrus groves. I saw a Benetton store in the new Havana. I saw Chinese selling major port infrastructure loading equipment to Cuba. British Petroleum was having a cocktail party on the roof of my hotel. Tourism is high.
There is always a sense of leverage that the US thinks it has -- but that leverage is now mostly fictional -- as Cuba has found other thoroughfares for growth.
We need to stop thinking that we have "leverage." The whole point of Anya Landau French's article is that US policy failed and that the embargo has failed -- so let's drop the fiction about the US having leverage in the embargo.
The only leverage America has on lifting or maintaining the embargo is with an aging, Castro-obsessed, reactionary population in Miami that thankfully is being taken over by a more rational contingent of Cuban-Americans who have either rethought their views or who just don't carry the same views as their elders in their younger portfolios of experience.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Comments (15)
Steve,
Good post.
Enough! The best thing to do now is to stop the pretense that US policy towards Cuba has had anything to do with freedom or democracy or tyranny or human rights.
The only thing that has resulted from almost a half century of acts of war and economic terrorism has be the loss of freedoms for both the Cubans and Americans and the unconscionable infliction of hardship on the Cuban people.
We have no way of knowing what Cuba would have been like if not for 48 years of US threats and US conducted, armed, funded, and directed terrorism, assassination attempts, and the crushing of the Cuban Civilian population by embargo, blockade and economic terrorism. There can be no doubt there would have been far greater liberty of the Cuban people if it were not for the actions and threats of the US.
Most Americans do not know that Castro did not start out as a Communist. In fact he initially imprisoned many communists. The communist party in Cuba had been infiltrated, corrupted and co-opted by Batista (the brutal US puppet dictator) and was part of his power structure.
Only after Castro rejected the US offer to be it’s replacement puppet and the attacks on Castro began did he seek help from the only source available (Russia).
I highly recommend reading "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II" by former Intel William Blum (State Dept.) (Website: killinghope dot org)
The history of the past half century of US foreign policy, mostly hidden from the American public through propaganda and control of the media, has been the overthrow of freely elected democracies replacing them with tyrannies (Iran, Guatemala, Chile etc.) OR the crushing of liberation and democracy movements as well as movements just wanting the basics of human rights. Until 1990 this was under the fabricated pretense of a threat from communism (used by big money and corporations for 3/4ths of a century), now it is “false flag” and fabricated threats from terrorism. Only the pretense has changed.
Castro was indeed the liberator and savior of the Cuban people who were eating dirt and had been enslaved by US agribusiness and other corporate tyranny through puppet dictators. The cities and resorts were ruled by US organized crime and the countryside was stolen and ruled by US corporate agribusiness (excuse me I repeat myself). The de facto freedom and standard of living of all but the formerly wealthy was dramatically improved as a result of the Cuban revolution. Many of what are referred to as the Miami mafia are those who were enriched by but also enabled the ongoing Batista-US tyranny (and now also their progeny).
Imagine the tyranny that Bush and the rest of the secret government would have inflicted on us if the US was proportionally under the same level of threat as Cuba has been. If you look at what even non-existent fabricated threats have done to our individual security and freedoms, it would be difficult to imagine what kind of evil tyranny we would be living under if had experienced the ongoing attacks and existential threats that the US has inflicted on Cuba for over half a century.
Despite the suffering, hardship and poverty that ongoing US crimes have inflicted on the people of Cuba they have access to more health care, education and other necessities of life than many Americans.
I, for one, am very worried about what will now become of the Cuban people. I hope it is nothing like what has happened to the people of Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico, Columbia, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Myanmar, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. etc.
Will we stand by and let it happen again? Enough!
Peace,
JK
PS: No insult intended to Castro, but check out this photo (#1) and tell me it isn’t a scary resemblance. (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/world/castro/gallery/castro)
February 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
One problem for US foreign policy is that we really do not have very acute interests to take care of. Nobody threatens us (at least, credibly), nobody refuses to trade with us. Thus we have the luxury to pursue policies the way people engage in, say, Dungeons and Dragons: we invent roles and we play.
And if we do not win by the rules that we set for ourselves, nothing bad happens. Exactly if we played Dungeons and Dragons. So what if our policy in respect to Cuba is mot achieving any objective goals? We do not need those goals, so no harm done.
And in the "multi-polar world" we are not the only ones who can play. So Chavez and Lula can have "influence". Good for them. But in our imaginary world, this does not happen. So there, Chavez and Lula! Both Chavez and Lula got some tangible benefits from their policies. Chavez benefitted from health-care experience of Cuba (to the chagrin of Venezuelan doctors), Brazil can use a boost to its industrial export. But we really do not have to give a damn. And we do not.
If we limited ourselves only to policies that bring some measurable benefit to, well, someone, we would loose some of our precious freedom. US would become just another country, rather that the exceptional one, a superpower so mighty that it does not have to give a damn about reality.
By the way, what happened to Cuban program to develop biological weapons that we have at some point discovered? "We" means Bush administration. A mortal threat to US is conveniently forgotten? Or just a failed attempt to enliven a party of Dungeons and Dragons that became, frankly, terribly boring?
February 19, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
American business interests react with terror every time the see a socialistic government anywhere in the world. They are well aware that those governments may nationalize the industries that are vital to their countries. And, American business interests' worst nightmare is the loss of their ability to reap massive amounts of money from their business activities. So, their kneejerk response to any socialistic government is to plot to overthrow that government.
We have succeeded in overthrowing several such governments, but we failed miserably in Cuba. Look for American business interests to begin again to plot the overthrow of the socialistic government in Cuba. A successful socialistic government so close to our shores cannot be permitted to continue to exist - we Americans might just start envying the people with such a government. shudderrrr...
February 19, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree hoppy,
The way you describe it, socialism sounds like a foreign animal.
We have a socialistic government here but it is one-sided.
Here all costs, risk, research, investment, losses, harm, collateral damage etc is socialized through the government and shared by all.
All profit, and almost all of the benefit is funneled to big money, big corp, and those who control the government. (Excuse me, I repeat myself.)
In countries that you describe as having socialistic governments, the first half of the equation is the same. (i.e. everyone works towards and shares the investments as well as the losses)
It is the second half of the equation that is different. That is the people in those countries also share in the profit and benefits.
Peace,
JK
February 19, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our better response when Castro took the reins in Cuba would have been to flood the island with tourists, industrialists, and dollars.
We'd have had a solid ally and quiet neighbor, run by a mildly annoying windbag, in short order.
February 19, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the embargo is all about Florida's electoral votes, rather than rational policy goals. People who have fled what they experience as despotic regimes, whether from the Balkans or Baltics during the Cold War or from Cuba under Castro, are passionate about the issue of their homelands.
In Wisconsin, this led to McCarthy. In Florida, the Cuban exile community is only now beginning to view the situation more flexibly after decades of support for hardline policies toward Cuba.
Under the radar are Venezuelans fleeing the life under Chavez's regime, who constitute a major financial and growing political force in Florida, and who, whether rightfully or wrongfully, will bitterly demand strong anti-Chavez policies from US politicians.
February 19, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you all talking about--it worked! It only took 46 years and 12 days to get rid of Castro! Well, the first one.
February 19, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
AdAbsurdum is exactly right. USA government Cuba policy is all about the electoral college votes in FL and NJ.
Clinton is on record as favoring the status quo while Obama is on record in favor of ending the trade and travel embargo.
By the way, the travel embargo is a complete joke as USA citizens may travel to Cuba at will.
February 19, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see our ongoing embargo against Cuba as being destructive theatrics similarly to the way I see the Protect America Act, Patriot Act, all the immigration madness and essentially all the other thoughtless edicts and policies put forward by the geniuses in Washington. These sorts of things do little if anything other than cost a lot of money and give the people within our government a feeling that they are actually doing something. The fact that what they are doing is bad or destructive is secondary to being able to say "see we're doing something!" (Pats on the back all around.)
I suppose it all kind of reminds me of a guy kicking the tires on a car when he's checking the thing out... I mean really, don't you want to smack that guy in the head? He obviously knows nothing whatsoever about automobiles. But in his mind he's putting on the good show... letting it be known that he's no fool to be taken advantage of. Yeah right. He's also the guy who will drive around lost for 8 hours and not admit it and simply ask someone for directions. Doesn't that sound like our nation's political leadership?
What we need are some leaders in Washington that will look out the window on occasion and actually see where we're going and the world as it really is instead of staring at themselves in the rearview mirror getting angry that the world doesn't look more like them. Maybe I expect too much.
I guess in the meantime we shouldn't bother them with facts, common sense, the Constitution or any other such trivial distractions. It appears that they're busy at the moment...kicking the tires...
February 19, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't we have to keep up the embargo? If we have relations with Cuba, the people who fled to the US will try to claim back the land they left when they fled. Any good land has been bought, stolen, rented, or occupied (however one looks at it) by European investors. So don't we have an interest in keeping up the embargo?
February 19, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, we don't have to maintain the embargo. What we do need to do is recognize the Cuban government as the legitimate government of Cuba, which it is. Then the acts of that government need to be judged by the people of Cuba, which they have. We have no legitimate interest in trying to undo the acts of the Cuban government over the past 45 years.
February 19, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should the US give up the illusion of leverage with its sanctions regimen?
Why the average American adores illusions. Take for instance the illusion that the US is a democracy or the 9 trillion dollar deficit dosen't matter or Iraq was a mortal threat to our very civilization or that the US government is a kind-benevolent-power that doesn't have empirical aspirations or that the US public education system is churning out aspiring Rhodes-Scholars by the bus load or that Mr. Bush was elected POTUS on 2000 or for-profit insurance schemes are good for the consumer or the spending of hundreds of billions of your tax-dollars a year on war is good or gratuitous violence on televison has no effect on children or the drugging of young children will aid in their development into fine upstanding citizen or that tax cuts during times of war are good or that dividends should be taxed at lower rates than earned income.
Hell, illusions is all the US government has left, thousands of nuclear warheads notwithstanding.
So eat your Kool-Aid straight from the packet, diluting it in water is for idealists, and give illusions a chance.
All I am saying is give illusions a chance.
February 19, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having a hard time not breaking out singing Kumbaya and wearing my tie-dyed tee shirts. Tears are running down my cheeks.
February 19, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is another counterproductive effect of the embargo that others seemed to have missed.
It has given the existing Cuban government a place to lay blame for their own bad economic policies.
It never ceases to astound me that some of the most vociferous advocates of the free-market are often the ones who seem most afraid of letting it run its course freely.
February 19, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could've got rid of Castro decades ago by welcoming Cuba into the capitalist world. Drop Nike tennis shoes and gameboys down to them with parachutes and they'd have been ours. This embargo has been either a joke or a cover for some other agenda. Whatever it's been, it hasn't been anything remotely associated with its stated purpose. No on is that stupid.
February 20, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink