United States Foreign Policy toward Cuba - Research Paper Example

United States Foreign Policy toward Cuba Introduction In the aftermath of the Cold War, USSR was dissolved while the United States of America successfully extended its influence in almost all parts of the globe. Accordingly, due to the consequential effects of alliances during the war, a trace of indifference had been observed to characterize the relationship between United States and Cuba. The root cause of the conflict had been attributed to Cuba’s direct and close connection with the former USSR. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) became internationally known as Russia following its dissolution. Notably, Cuba opted to maintain its political and economic relation with the Soviet’s legal successor. Since then, U.S. had been indifferent to Cuba and decided to put restrictions in their relationship as “nations.” In fact, a law was adopted by the United States congress to prevent international companies “from dealing with any kind of Cuban assets” (Byers and Nolte 127). U.S. had also obtained from the United Nations Security Council “a binding international embargo against Cuba” (Byers and Nolte 127). As such, U.S. companies were prohibited to trade with the Caribbean country (Leler). Also, licensed travel was sharply restricted—travel agencies were required to have government authorization first and foremost (Schwab 75). The objective of such constraints was to economically isolate Cuba “while depriving it of U.S. dollars” (Schwab 75). For almost a decade, these restrictions were viable and effective until a new form of leadership had taken into place. The Obama administration had considered modifying its foreign policies to bridge the gap between the Americans and Cubans. A Modified Foreign Policy Foreign policies in the international setting are interest-specific. It is always the interest of the general public that has a great bearing in every decision making. The goal of protecting and projecting the national interest remains the same (Ahmed, qtd. in “One Day Lecture”). Nevertheless, the dynamism of international affairs makes it difficult for global leaders to be focusing on the same policy every now and then. As stated by Ahmed, the periodic re-adjustment of foreign policies is an inevitable event (qtd. in “One Day Lecture”). Generally, foreign policy is the face that a nation wears in the outside world. “It is the sum total of the values” which direct the behavior of a country in the international sphere (Ahmed, qtd. in “One Day Lecture”). In essence, making a foreign policy is critical to a country’s status and recognition as a state. Outcomes of the policies will substantially affect the state to state relation. In such case, a foreign policy must always represent the “political, economic and strategic” objectives that a state aims to achieve either bilaterally or multilaterally (Ahmed, qtd. in “One Day Lecture”). If a contrary circumstance happens, then naturally, a foreign policy will be ineffective and might lead to conflicting claims of national interest. In the present scenario, the United States is actually pursuing not just its own interest but also the interest of the Cuban people. This interest is founded on democratic values which have been the concern of most Cubans for a considerable period of time—an interest which fosters respect for the basic “human, political and economic rights of all the citizens” (“Fact Sheet”). The move to remodel the U.S. policy towards Cuba is in accord with the dynamic character of a foreign policy. Significantly, it has been observed that the United States foreign policy in the Caribbean country is actually based on two grounds: (1) the necessity “to secure its borders” and (2) to “create an atmosphere where countries will not stray from the path of democracy” (Davis 94). To reiterate, the Cold War is over. Embargoes are supposedly to be resorted in times of war (Leler). It has been almost twenty years that the war between U.S. and USSR has ended. In such case, the Cuban support for USSR has also concluded. Nonetheless, the U.S. embargo effort existed for those years of peaceful settlement. It appears that the present administration’s goal of making plans that will alter the outmoded foreign policy has been inspired by the growing Cuban American population in the United States. Such strategy has been praised by the United Nations. Actually, the United Nations (UN) has been passing resolutions condemning the embargo effort but was unheeded by past U.S. administrations. Presently, it has been opined that the Obama administration will be the starting point in U.S. history to heed the resolutions issued by U.N. If the United States will maintain such attitude, then, there is a great possibility that the other nations will also faithfully comply with any resolutions that United Nations will pass. Better Relations There are many reasons why United States and Cuba should better their relations as “nations” in the international community. In line with that, it is contended that such goal is beneficial to both countries. National Security Changing the foreign policy toward Cuba can strengthen the national security of the United States. It has been cited that the past U.S. administrations have pressured its key governmental institutions tasked with the job of keeping U.S. secure from any form of terrorism through its orders associated “to the Cuba sanctions program” (Colvin). In fact, United States has spent millions of dollars just to support its military effort against Cuba. The actions were subordinated on the fact that Cuba is one of the countries who were regarded by U.S. to be supporting terrorists. The United States has alleged that the Caribbean country has been providing critical assistance “to non-state terrorist groups” since 1982 (Zalman “History”). This is the reason why Cuba was included in the United States 2007 list of countries supporting terrorism activities (Zalman “U.S. State”). The list actually includes the following: (1) Cuba, (2) Iran, (3) North Korea, (4) Sudan, and (5) Syria (Zalman “U.S. State”). Cuba has remained on the list even though the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of United States in its 2003 investigation did not discover any credible evidence to support its claim against Cuba. The CIA has reported that based on their investigation, the Cuban government has not engaged either indirectly or directly on any efforts supporting terrorist groups in the globe (Zalman “U.S. State”). Despite such finding, the United States then under Bush administration has considered Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. Perhaps, the decision was influenced by the fact that Cuba has long been against America, employing anti-American policies and has been alongside with Russia which has been a close competitor with U.S. in the world market. Significantly, the Obama administration has declared its objective of instilling democratic values to Cuba (“Fact Sheet”). Plausibly, this goal will not be realized if United States will continue to count the times that Cuba has supported the communist states long time ago. If Cuba in the past has posed “a security threat to the United States,” that day has long been gone (Bernell 65). At this very moment, it is best for U.S. to reconsider its policies and gave chance to Cuba. Besides, there is no available proof to establish the guilt of the Caribbean country with regard to terrorism. In addition, there are more important matters that need fund other than allocating it to insignificant and overdue issue—like the case at hand. It would be practicable for U.S. to reverse its policies in Cuba and establish “risk-based priorities for allocating scarce resources” which could allow its “government to refocus its attention on the most serious threats to national security” (Colvin). The Economic Side It is always profitable to have trade agreements with other countries. The benefits are reciprocal as well as the corresponding obligations. Unilateral, bilateral or multilateral, it largely depends on the economic capacity of a state. Nevertheless, a bilateral agreement is considered as the most effective kind of trade agreement—the conduct of relation between the country of origin and destination is in accordance with the “agreed principles and procedures” (“Bilateral Agreements”). For the destination country, a bilateral agreement can “help achieve a flow of labor that meets the needs of employers and industrial sectors while providing for better management and promoting cultural ties and exchanges” (“Bilateral Agreements”). On the other hand, for the country of origin, such agreement can “ensure continued access to overseas labor markets and opportunities to promote the protection and welfare of its workers” (“Bilateral Agreements”). In connection, the move to allow American corporations to invest in Cuba would be beneficial to both countries. This economic endeavor ““offers the country (Cuba) a great advantage” to commence a new economic strategy based on its intensive use, which would allow it to distinguish itself within the complex world of globalization” (Valdes and Paz 175). Moreover, it “would provide more solid ground for the support and expansion of social policies in the long term” which is very essential in a democratic society (Valdes and Paz 175). As proposed by the Obama administration, the following are the proposed economic policies of U.S. toward Cuba: (1) lifting the prohibitions “to travel of family members” (2) removing the restrictions on financial remittances to family members (3) authorizing telecommunications network providers to set up facilities (4) granting general license for depository institutions and (5) allowing satellite radio and television service providers to transact business (“Fact Sheet”). Allowing the travel of Cubans and Americans respectively in each country can actually increase the profit of the tourism industry. Tourism plays a significant role in a country’s economy. A booming tourism industry creates more jobs due to the increase of foreign investors establishing new industries. To comprehensively state, “tourism provides a substantial proportion of the money that supports heritage and culture and is one of the main focuses for economic regeneration in many areas” of the world (“Benefits”). Moreover, “it makes an important contribution to the quality of life, supporting facilities and services that benefit the whole community” (“Benefits”). Without doubt, the easement of the travel relation between the United States and Cuba is not just beneficial to both countries but also practicable. The establishment of fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities as well as the licensing of depository institutions, radio and satellite television service providers could increase the gross annual income of both countries. Substantially, Cuba’s revenue from taxes will increase if telecommunication network providers and media service providers will be established in its locality. On the side of U.S., this could mean more investments which could increase its total annual earning. Humanitarian Benefit “Humanitarian ideas have become central to defining American interests and making foreign policy in the post-Cold War period” (Lake and David 91). The international community has witnessed how U.S. utilized humanitarian aid to justify “diplomatic and military action” (Lake and David 92). Such form of commitment has made the United States one of the “largest official government providers of humanitarian aid”—solely “responsible for about one third of all official bilateral humanitarian aid” (Riddell 315). In connection, expanding the scope of its humanitarian donations to Cuba can solidify its never-ending dedication to serve the humanity in all possible ways. In the past, the United States has been providing humanitarian aid to Cuba but this was limited due to some economic restrictions. As a fact, in 2008, the United States government has made an “offer of critical humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba in the aftermath of a hurricane.” However, due to certain prohibitions, the assistance has reached indirectly the “hurricane victims through international relief agencies and non-governmental organizations” (“U.S. Offers”). In lieu of that fact, the United States inspired by humanitarian values decided to “expand the scope of its humanitarian donations” for export in Cuba (“Fact Sheet”). As contained in the proposed steps to alter the United States foreign policy towards Cuba, this is to be done through any of the following: (1) restoring clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, veterinary medicines and supplies, fishing equipments and supplies and soap-making equipments to the list of items eligible to be included in gift parcel donations (2) restoring items normally exchanged as gifts by individuals in usual and reasonable quantities to the list of items eligible to be included in gift parcel donations (3) expanding the scope of eligible gift parcel donors to include any individual and (4) increasing the value limit on non-food items to eight hundred dollars. (“Fact Sheet”) If the mentioned steps are pursued, then, the United States’ key governmental institutions can already directly export the added items to Cuba. This effort will surely strengthen the relationship of Americans and Cubans—the donations will form part of Cuba’s goods and services which are to be delivered to its citizens. Constructive Engagement A former congressman in California, in his appreciation of the move to change United States foreign policy towards Cuba has stated that such unilateral act will “demonstrate to the international community” that U.S. is truly “committed to a policy of constructive engagement” (“New Report”). Constructive engagement is actually done by setting up relations with a country to a limited extent. This limitation is mostly driven by political and economic interests. Nonetheless, constructive engagement is to be referred to as a preliminary step to achieve full inter-state relation. This is due to the fact that the results of the first engagement encounter can actually be the basis for reconsideration of foreign policies. In the case of American-Cuban relation, the constructive engagement has been done though certain economic restrictions. The recent reconsideration of these limitations by the Obama administration is to be considered as the commencement of greater inter-state relation between the two states in the international arena. Moreover, the bilateral trade engagement as proposed by the United States will eventually increase the confidence of the American-Cuban citizens to the government. This is also the beginning of a true liberation in Cuba—the freedom to determine its future as a guarantee to the adoption of democratic values. Nonetheless, “engagement does not mean approval of the Cuban government’s policies, nor it should indicate a wish to control internal developments in Cuba. The legitimate changes in Cuba will only come from the actions of Cubans” (“Cuba: A New”). Conclusion The American-Cuban relation would surely flourish if both governments will be persistent as to their corresponding obligations in the bilateral engagements. Their relation as “nations” in the international community shall be a model to other hostile countries which are not employing democratic principles. However, it is right to emphasize that the adoption of democratic values must come from within a society. In the case of Cuba, democratic reforms should start from the grassroots level. Relevantly, this act requires the active participation and support from Cuba’s key governmental institutions. Works Cited “Benefits that Tourism can Bring to Society.” Southeast Cultural Observatory. Southeast Cultural Observatory, n.d. Web. 2 Jul. 2010. . Bernell, David. “The Curious Case of Cuba in American Foreign Policy.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 36.2 (1994): 65. Print. “Bilateral Agreements.” RO Bangkok. International Labour Organization, 3 May 2009. Web. 5 Jul. 2010. . Byers, Michael, and Georg Nolte. United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. Colvin, Jake. “Cuba Politics News and Information.” Havana Journal. Havana Journal, 11 Dec. 2008. Web. 2 Jul. 2010. . “Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement.” Foreign Policy at Brookings. [pdf]. . Davis, Anne Marie. “United States Foreign Policy Objectives and Grenada’s Territorial Integrity.” The Journal of Negro History 79.1 (1994): 94. Print. “Fact Sheet: Reaching Out to the Cuban People.” www.whitehouse.gov. The White House, 13 Apr. 2009. Web. 2 Jul. 2010. . Lake, Anthony, and David Ochmanek. The Real and the Ideal: Essays on International Relations in Honor of Richard H. Ullman. Boston: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001. Print. Leler, William. “End the Embargo of Cuba.” Home Page of Wm Leler. Home Page of Wm Leler, n.d. Web. 2 Jul. 2010. . “New Report Cites Political and Foreign Policy Benefits of Changing the U.S. Approach to Cuba.” USA Engage. USA Engage, n.d. Web. 2 July 2010. . “One Day Lecture on Pakistan Foreign Policy in 21st Century Organized by the Area Study Center Far East and South East Asia University of Sindh.” University of Sindh. University of Sindh, 2 Apr. 2010. Web. 2 Jul. 2010. . Riddell, Roger. Does Foreign Aid Really Work? New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Schwab, Peter. Cuba: Confronting the U.S. Embargo. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Print. “U.S. Offers New Direct Humanitarian Aid to Cuban Government; Humanitarian Organizations Set to Move U.S. Aid to Cuba.” USAID. USAID, 30 Dec. 2008. Web. 2 Jul. 2010. . Valdes, Julio Carranza, and Juan Valdes Paz. “Institutional Development and Social Policy in Cuba.” Journal of International Affairs 58.1 (2004): 175. Print. Zalman, Amy. “History of Cuba – State Sponsor of Terrorism.” About.com. About.com, n.d. Web. 2 Jul. 2010. < http://terrorism.about.com/od/cuba/a/Cuba.htm>. Zalman, Amy. “U.S. State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism List.” About.com. About.com, n.d. Web. 2 Jul. 2010. . Read More