U.S. Embargo on Cuba - Term Paper Example

Cuba has been an irritating grain of sand in the eye of USA since half a century. Before the Cuban revolution and the rise of Fidel Castro, United States was very comfortably holding the idea that this little island belonged to them as naturally as a god-given gift. It was in 1783 that the first major political mention about Cuba was made by a US leader. John Adams, who later became the second President of United States stated that “Cuba was America’s natural extension” (Schwab, 1999, preface, p.7). America’s colonial dreams of invasion were more than once realized by taking hold of this island. Schwab (1999, preface, p.7) has historically described, this motive when he said, “United States militarily occupied Cuba from 1898 to 1902 and in 1903, it imposed the Platt amendment, which granted the United States the right of intervention as well as territory at Guantanamo Bay, which it still holds.” In 1906, US again occupied Cuba, and literally governed it by promoting US business interests in this nation. This intervention made historians (Schwab, 1999, preface, p.7) observe that “in the late 1930s and 1940s, the mafia turned Cuba into an American gambling casino.” When Fulgensio Batista grabbed power in Cuba in 1952, through a military coup, “US government and corporate investors” enjoyed control over the whole of Cuba’s economy (Schwab, 1999, preface, p.7). In history, evidences abound regarding the US involvement in sustaining and controlling Colonel Batista. Schwab (1999, p.2) pointed to this fact when he said, “President Franklin. D. Roosevelt had thrown his support behind then Colonel Batista allowing him to run Cuba to America’s advantage through a series of puppet presidents.” Soon after January 1, 1959, the date on which Cuban revolutionaries seized power from Batista, America announced an embargo against Cuba. That was in October 1960 by which, exports from US to Cuba were prohibited. The US-supported invasion of Bay of Pigs by Cuban exiles in 1961 followed but that attempt was defeated by Cuban army. The succeeding governments of US have stood by the embargo and ultimately, the Clinton administration turned this embargo into codified law through the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.1). “Restrictions on travel to and from the island and on the sale of goods and services there, bans on investment in business ventures, constraints on immigration, limits on journalists and scholars going to Cuba” etc. are the major prohibitions enacted (Schwab, 1999, preface, p.11). Goods cannot be transported from other nations to Cuba via any of the US ports. Cuba also cannot access foreign capital from other countries because this may invite US sanctions against those countries. Other restrictions include, “ i) the strict limitations of the transfers of foreign currencies by the families in exile, ii) the six-months ban to enter U.S. harbours of all ships that had anchored in a Cuban port, iii) sanctions against firms doing commerce with the island even though under the jurisdiction of a third state.” (Qtd. In Herrera, 2003). Despite these isolation attempts from its powerful neighbour, the Socialist-Communist Cuba and its unquestioned leader Fidel Castro survived eleven US Presidents. Suchlicki et. al. (1994, p.3) have drawn attention to the fact that “to date no substantial change in Cuba’s internal policies, leading to the imposition of the embargo to begin with, have taken place.” Cuba could export food and medicines that they desperately needed from many other countries only through US ports. When the embargo came into effect, reports of food shortage and medicine shortage started coming from Cuba. The Cuban economy suffered greatly from the embargo. Only support that Cuba could get was from Soviet Union but in 1991, when the Soviet Union disintegrated, Cuba fell into the abyss of an economic crisis. The rightists think, Castro has “created an economic catastrophe in Cuba” (Schwab, 1999, preface, p.11) and talk about “lack of food and the semi-paralysed health care system” that exist there (Schwab, 1999, preface, p.11). The more rightist Republican Party in US has been the staunchest supporters of the US embargo against Cuba. It is common knowledge that the “liberal Democrats have always disliked the embargo” (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.2). The main reason cited for the continuation of the embargo is the so-called lack of democracy and human rights in Cuba. The embargo was equally the by-product of cold war as well (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.11). But even as back as during the Ford and Carter administrations, “the US business interests began to suggest that there would be economic benefits to ending the embargo” (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.12). Regarding human rights, it has been argued by many (Schwab, 1999) that the Western notion of human rights was not the only one in this regard to have approved by the world. Article 52 of the Cuban Constitution states that “citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society” (Qtd. In Schwab, 1999, p.9). This means that individual human rights are restricted within the parameters of the rights of the society (Schwab, 1999, preface, p.8). In 1961, Castro uttered his famous lines, “within the revolution everything; outside the revolution nothing.” (Qtd in Schwab, 1999, p.9) Even if one agrees that individual freedom is restricted in Cuba, certain other social achievements of Cuba override these limitations and contribute to the welfare of the people as a whole. The Cuban government has guaranteed all Cubans, an eight-hour work day and the state is also obliged to provide free healthcare (Schwab, 1999, p.10). Article 8 and Chapter 6 of the Cuban Constitution guarantees that “no child be left without schooling, food, and clothing” (Qtd. In Schwab, 1999, p.16). Though distributing resources equally among all the citizens can be interpreted as violation of individual right toward holding private property, a little insight can also make one understand the benefits of such a system. In NewsWeek, Moises Naim (2009) wrote about Cuba in a similar vein: (Cuba) is also the country whose progress in health care and education for the majority became the stuff of legend. It is the small country that the United States has unsuccessfully tried to isolate for decades through a variety of means—including an absurd and useless embargo that hurts the United States more than Cuba. But the embargo has cost Cuba dearly. Herrera (2003) has listed the damages caused to Cuba as given below: i) the loss of earnings due to the obstacles to the development of services and exportations (tourism, air transport, sugar, nickel; ii) the losses registered as a result of the geographic reorientation of the commercial flows, (additional costs of freight, stocking and commercialization at the purchasing of the goods…); iii) the impact of the limitation imposed on the growth of the national production of goods and services (limited access to technologies, lack of access to spare parts and hence early retirement of equipment, forced restructuring of firms, serious difficulties sustained by the sectors of sugar, electricity, transportation, agriculture…); iv) the monetary and financial restrictions (impossibility to renegotiate the external debt, interdiction of access to the dollar, unfavourable impact of the variation of the exchange rates on trade, risk-country, additional cost of financing due to U.S. opposition to the integration of Cuba into the international financial institutions…); v) the pernicious effects of the incentive to emigration, including illegal emigration (loss of human resources and talents generated by the Cuban educational system…); vi) social damages affecting the population (concerning food, health, education, culture, sport…). Whatever the views that American governments have held in this matter, slowly, certain changes have happened in the Cuban policy of USA. One major shift was that the president controlled policy was replaced by a policy controlled by the “Congress and other interest groups” (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.3). Parallel to the efforts to sabotage the Castro government, in October 2000, US Congress passed Trade Sanctions Reform and Exports Enhancement Act, by which “limited sales of food and medicine to the island is allowed” (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.2). Haney and Vanderbush (2005, p.3) have noted that “thousands of Americans, an estimated 1,35,000 in 2002, visit Cuba legally each year with ‘licences’ that allow them to travel to Cuba” and “US companies sold over $150 million worth of food and medicine to the island in 2002.” (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.3). All these show that the embargo was weakening on its own (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.3). The formation of Cuban American National Foundation (CAFN) during Reagen regime had aroused a renewed interest in the embargo and pro-embargo advocates had become stronger. CAFN was founded by a group of Cuban American ideologues and businessmen under the auspices of National Security Council (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.35). After the formation of CAFN, questions were raised about the role of ethnic interest groups in making US policies. (Haney and Vanderbush, 2005, p.31). In February 2009, BBC News reported senior US Republican senator Richard Lugar arguing in a report prepared by him that “we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuba regime in a way that enhances US interests” (BBC News website). The report by Lugar has suggested “ an end to restrictions imposed during the Bush administration on travel and remittances to Cuba, re-instituting formal co-operation on migration and tackling drug trafficking, and allowing Cuba to buy US agricultural products on credit” (BBC News Website). According to a calculation made by US Chamber of Commerce, the lost sales caused by the embargo costs US, $1.2 billion in a year. (Pepper , Dollar&Sense). It costs Cuba $685 million as well. (Pepper , Dollar&Sense). Even the European Council, which has been an ally of US, has criticized the new LIBERTAD Act of US strengthening the embargo against Cuba for its “extraterritorial provisions” ( Croci). The United Nations General Assembly has criticized the embargo as an attempt to circumvent international laws and passed 18 resolutions on the same ever since. (irishtimes.com). The public opinion in US also seems to have tilted much towards lifting the embargo. A 2007 AP/Ipsos Poll suggested that only 48% percent of Americans wanted the embargo to be continued while, 40% did not. (Polling report on Cuba). Also 62% Americans wanted diplomatic relations to be reinstated with Cuba. (Polling report on Cuba). The website, CNN Politics.com, has published another poll result in which, two-thirds of Americans wanted the travel ban to Cuba to be lifted (CNN Politics.com). CNN polling director Keating Holland while publishing this poll results, has observed that "Republicans as well as Democrats favor re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba" (CNN Politics.com). But US President Barak Obama has recently renewed the trade embargo (BBC News.com). The politics of US policy on Cuba is also ruled by several market and economic interests. Public Campaigne, a US watchdog group, based in Washington, revealed that pro-embargo political action committees have recently “shifted from giving 71 percent of their contributions to Republicans in 2004 to giving 76 percent to Democrats so far in the 2010 campaign” ( www.upi.com). Another report by Public Campaign has also showed that, “Supporters of the U.S. embargo against Cuba have contributed nearly $11 million to members of Congress since 2004 in a largely successful effort to block efforts to weaken sanctions against the island and in several cases, members of Congress who had supported easing sanctions against Cuba changed their position and got donations from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee and its donors.” (miamiherald.com, 2009). The report reveals that “at least 18 House members — including several from agriculture-rich districts — received campaign contributions from the PAC or its donors and switched their positions on Cuba, from voting in favor of easing travel restrictions to voting against any efforts to soften the embargo.” (miamiherald.com, 2009). Haney and Vanderbush (2005, p.6) have raised a valid point when they said, “with the end of the cold war, Cuba policy became as much a question of foreign economic policy as one of national security, with the Department of Defense itself admitting in 1997 that Cuba poses no significant military threat to the United States.” But United States so far has deferred from a post-cold war analysis of Cuban issue just because of the presence of the pressure group of Cuban Americans. All these facts reveal that there is no sense in continuing the embargo. But lifting the embargo means rising above pressure group interests and taking a more tolerant stand. Repealing of the embargo can win US business gains as well as a good will from the international community. That will also become a humanitarian step for the people of Cuba, who suffer greatly under the trade restrictions. The basic tenet of democracy is in putting trust in the ability of the people to understand and choose their own destiny. Underestimating Cuban people in this regard will be a major mistake. Works cited Schwab,Peter, 1999, Cuba: Confronting the US embargo, Palgrave Macmillan. Haney, Patrick Jude, Vanderbush, Walt, 2005, The Cuban embargo: The domestic politics of an American foreign policy, University of Pittsburgh Press. BBC News, US must rethink Cuban embargo, February 23, 2009.web. November 26, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7905544.stm BBC News, Obama renews Cuba trade embargo, by Michael Voss  BBC News, Havana, September 15, 2009.web.November 27, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8256196.stm CNN Politics.com, Published on April 10, 2009.web. November 28, 2009, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/10/poll.cuba/index.html#cnnSTCText Naim, Moises, NewsWeek, The Havana Obsession, Why all eyes are on a bankrupt island, in the magazine issue. Jun 22, 2009. web.November 28, 2009, http://www.newsweek.com/id/201752 www.upi.com, Pro-Cuba embargo PAC money going to Dems., Nov. 16, 2009.web.November 28, 2009, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/16/Pro-Cuba-embargo-PAC-money-going-to-Dems/UPI-37211258385929/ Suchlicki et.al, 1994, Investing in Cuba: Problems and prospects, Transaction Publishers. Pepper, Margot , The Costs of the Embargo: The 47-year-old blockade now costs the United States far more than it costs Cuba, Dollars & Sense. March/April 2009. web. 29 November 2009. Croci, O., America’s aggressive unilateralism irks allies, http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~ocroci/helmsburton.htm. Irishtimes.com, UN vote condemns US embargo, 28 October 2009.web.November 30 2009, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1028/breaking71.htm Polling Report on Cuba, AP/Ipsos Poll, Jan 30-Feb 1, 2007 Clark, Lesley, Miamiherald.com, Report links donations, lawmakers’ support of Cuba embargo, 16 November 2009.web.30 November 2009, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1336319.html Herrera, Remy, The effects of the US embargo against Cuba, Alternatives, 7 October 2003.web.30 November 2009. Read More