Professor Enrique Ulffe Whu
Ethics ofDevelopment in a Global Society
6 Dec 2002
TheUS Embargo on Cuba
In 1959,
Cubareceived 74 percent of its imports from the US, and the US received 65
percentof CubaÕs exports. On February 3, 1962, the United States imposed a
fulltrade embargo on Cuba, completely ending any type of trade between the
twocountries. This embargo remains in effect today, more than four decades
later,and has grown ! to be a huge center of debate and controversy (DeVarona
8).Opponents to the embargo argue that the embargo does nothing more than hurt
theCuban people, while proponents argue that the embargo places pressure on
Castroto repair CubaÕs mismanaged and corrupt government. Both the supportersand
the opponents of this embargo have strong arguments and evidence to
supportthese arguments.
Without
adoubt, CubaÕs current government is guilty of human rights violations,housing
fugitives and terrorist groups, and robbing the Cuban people of wageswith its
corrupt state-run economy. While it is inarguable that some actionagainst Cuba
is warranted, and that the US economic embargo on Cuba haspositive intentions,
the negative repercussions to the Cuban people andthird-party investors and
countries greatly outweigh these positive intentions.! Therefore, it would be
greatly ineffective for the embargo to remain in placeas the sole tool in
promoting change in Cuba.
There are a
fewreasons that action towards Cuba was and is warranted. Since the beginning
ofthe Castro regime, the Cuban government has stripped many Cubans of their
basicrights and freedoms. According to Amnesty InternationalÕs 2002 report,Cuba
is guilty of multiple human rights violations. Cuban people are beingimprisoned
for peaceful exercises of their fundamental freedoms. There are atleast seven
known cases of Cuban prisoners of conscience. Many others areincarcerated for
as long as several months without a trial. Also, there isevidence that access
to medical care by prisone! rs is intentionally withheldfrom prisoners of
conscience, and other prisoners that criticized the Cubangovernment. Amnesty
International reports that suspected critics of thegovernment are being
harassed with threats, eviction, loss of employment, andeven short-term
incarceration. Even more disturbing is that these violationsare merely a
fraction of the true number of human rights breaches that theCuban government
is guilty of committing (ÒAmnesty International 2002ReportÓ). But the human
rights violations are not the only reason actionneeded to be taken towards
Cuba.
Another reason
forimplementing the embargo on Cuba concerns the corrupt communist government
andUS hopes of promoting a transition to a democratic system. On February 3,
1962,President Kennedy was confident that ÒCastro was moving toward
theestablishment of a to! talitarian regime in alliance with the Soviet
UnionÓ(DeVarona 7). This raised a huge national defense issue since Cuba is
only 90miles from US soil. The US government claims that the transition from
communismto democracy will help Cuba flourish, as other democratic countries in
thewestern hemisphere have. (ÒCuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act
of1996Ó).
Secondly,
Cubaneeds to repair its corrupt, failing state-run economy. The reality of
thisstruggling economy is that CubaÕs resources are plenty, and its
economyshockingly does not reflect this. In 1956, the US Department of
Commercereleased a study on CubaÕs resources, stating ÒCubaÕs soilfertility and
amount of level land adaptable to farm machinery are unique inLatin America,
equal only to the Argentinean Pampas and the Great Plains ofWestern ! Brazil.Ó
It seems obvious that Fidel CastroÕs mismanagementof the island has much to do
with its failing economy. Castro has spent much of$100-$150 billion in Soviet
aid on failed revolutionary exploits and repressingthe Cuban people, rather
than inputting this very large aid package towardsimproving the Cuban economy.
(DeVarona 11-12).
A third reason forimplementing
the embargo on Cuba is the fact that many Cuban workers receiveonly a fraction
of their fair share of wages. Donald Trump, a successfulreal-estate investor,
outlines reasons why he refuses to invest in Cuba.
If I opened a casino/hotel inHavana,
I would be required to pay Castro about $10,000 per year for each Cubanworker.
But the workers would not benefit. Castro ! would pay them the equivalentof $10
a month. The rest he uses to pay for the brutal and violent system thatkeeps
him in power -- and deprives the Cuban people of basic human rights. Inother
words, my investment in Cuba would directly subsidize the oppression ofthe
Cuban people. (Trump)
Even with several
Europeaninvestment groups asking Trump to form a partnership and build hotel-casinos
inHavana, he refused on the basis that he does not want to help finance
agovernment like CastroÕs, even though he is losing millions of dollars
ofprofits.
It is clear
thatsome action toward Cuba is warranted, but are the reasons for
implementationenough to justify a full trade embargo?
It is true
thatCuba is guilty of some human rights violations. But are the magnitudes of
theseviolations greater than those of countries that the US has full diplomatic
tieswith?
ColombiaÕsworsening
human rights crisis does not seem to affect the trade relationship ithas with
the US. The army, their paramilitary allies, and armed oppositiongroups are
committing Ògrave human rights violations and abuses, withcivilians the
principal! victims.Ó This past year alone, 300 people werereported missing,
4,000 civilians were injured, 1,700 were killed, and numerouspeople were forced
to move (ÒAmnesty International 2002 ReportÓ).
In
Argentina,Belize, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Jamaica,
Paraguay, Peru,and Venezuela, Òtorture and ill-treatment by security forces
[towardsprisoners] in custodyÓ have been reported. In some cases, in Brazil
andMexico, torture was even used to Òextract confessionsÓ as aÒreplacement for
modern investigation techniquesÓ (ÒAmnestyInternational 2002 ReportÓ).
Several
othercountries, including Belize, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El
Salvador,Guyana! , Mexico, and Venezuela, are guilty of Òunlawful killings by
lawenforcement agents.Ó In Peru, 200 people Òunjustly convictedÓof terrorism
remain in jail In Brazil, 481 police killings were reported in thestate of Sao
Paulo alone. And in Jamaica, more than 152 people were killed bypolice forces,
including several men under Òcircumstances suggestingextrajudicial executions.Ó
Also, in Argentina, dozens of people werekilled by police under Òdisputable
circumstancesÓ while over 30people were killed during demonstrations.
ÒPrisoners ofconscience,Ó like in Cuba, also exist in Argentina, Mexico, and
Peru.(ÒAmnesty International 2002 ReportÓ).
The US has not placed a
tradeembargo on any of the above countries.
Even more
damagingto the US logic of imposing sanctions in response to human rights
violations isthe fact that the United States itself is guilty of human rights
breaches. InAmnesty InternationalÕs 2002 report on human rights conditions, the
USwas found to be guilty of multiple violations. For example, Òtorture
andill-treatmentÓ by police forces were reported. Moreover, there werenumerous
reports of Òunlawful killings by law enforcement agents.ÓThis, AI states, is
primarily due to the Òexcessive use of lethalforce.Ó Also, the US is the only
country in its region to ÒlegallyÓexecute criminals. Of the 66 people put to
death in the past year, many werementally impaired and one was even under 18 at
the time he committed the crime.In addition, the US was found guilty of
Òbreaching its internationalobligationsÓ by not allowing Karl and Walter
LaGrand, two German citizense! xecuted in 1999, to communicate with their
consulate. And the list continues:
ÒIn the USA, more than 1,200 people -- mainlynon-US
nationals -- were detained during investigations into the attacks.
Thedetentions were surrounded by extreme secrecy and there have been reports
ofincommunicado detention and ill- treatment. Human rights concerns raised by
thesweeping "anti-terrorism" legislation passed by Congress
werecompounded by the establishment by Presidential military order of
specialmilitary commissions for the trial of non US-nationals suspected
of"terrorism". These courts would create a "second class
justicesystem" for foreign nationals as they would expressly flout some of
thebasic guarantees prevailing in the US justice system.Ó
!
Yet, the United States feels it
isappropriate to cite human rights violations in Cuba as a valid reason for
theimplementation of the embargo.
Another poor reason the US cites as grounds
toimplement the embargo is to promote a change in the Cuban government
fromcommunism to democracy. Does this imply that the US should impose
tradesanctions on all communist countries? This is clearly not how the US
governmenthas interpreted it. The United States has full diplomatic relations
withseveral communist countries, including Vietnam and one if its larger
tradepartners, China. So it does not seem logical for the US to cite the
communistnature of the Cuban government as a reason to impose these hefty
tradesanctions.
It also does not seem logical that the US hopes torepair CubaÕs failing state-run economy with a trade embargo. It hasbecome obvious in the past 40 years that any negative monetary effects meant topressure Castro into changing his state-run economy to a more capitalisteconomy has been felt by every Cuban but Castro. While the intent of thispolicy is positive, since it is obvious that Castro will ensure his own wellbeing before that of his people, it does not make sense to impose sanctions andworsen the economic situation in hopes of one day making it better.
Similarly, proponents of the embargo argue that theCuban people are not getting their fair share of wages. While this is true,just as in its attempt to repair the failing economy, it has spent 40 yearswith its only productivity being counter productivity. Instead of changing thepercentage of CubaÕs money that the Cuban people see, it has me! relychanged the overall amount of money that Cuba has. This means that instead ofthe Cuban people receiving a small percentage of a large amount of money, theyare now receiving a small percentage of a small amount of money. And, onceagain, Castro, the one person intended to be pressured, is left unaffected.
Regardless of whether or not the UnitedStatesÕ reasons for the implementation of the embargo are valid, there isstill a monstrous hypocrisy on the United StatesÕ part. It seems odd thatthe US, a country that in similar situations in the past, has had a muchdifferent stance. The most obvious example is the Arab League Boycott of Israelin the mid to late 1970s. Not only did the US strongly voice its opposition tothe boycott, it created loads of Òanti-boycottÓ legislation, andeven an Office of Anti-boycott Compliance. Moreover, the US openly acknowledgedthat the boycott of a single countryÕs goods, sp! ecifically Israel, causesÒsignificant economic harmÓ to the United States ( Ò1996National Trade Estimate: The Arab League Boycott of IsraelÓ). Yet itstrongly supports its sanctions on Cuba.
IV. Negative effects of theembargo.
Assuming the US is justified in its reasoning toimplement the embargo, there are still many negative results of theembargo. The US must take intoconsideration the stance of the rest of the world on issues such as thisembargo, and it is not diplomatic or professional to insult other countries bya flat out ignorance of differing stances. With this in mind, the US mustexamine closely the UN resolutions urging it to repeal its 40 year-old tradeembargo on Cuba. On November 12, 2002, the UN overwhelmingly (173-3, with onlyfour countries abstaining) passed the 11th consecutive reso! lutioncalling for an end to the US embargo on Cuba. Since 1992, the UN has been clearin its opinion on the economic sanctions on Cuba, passing a similar resolution59 to 3 (ÒCuba Uses UN Platform to Denounce U.S. EmbargoÓ). The UNwas created, in part, as a collective voice of the world with respect to issuesconcerning the countries and people of the world. For the US to ignore, or actselectively, in implementation of UN resolutions is a slap in the face to thecountries and people of this world. This is especially true since the US has,most recently with Iraq, insisted that other countries respect UN resolutions.
But this is merely a tiny fraction of the problemswith the embargo. A much larger issue is the constitutionality of suchsanctions. Although there are several aspects of the embargo that arecontroversial in terms of their constitutionality, there is one aspect that isinarguably unconstitutional. Critics claim tha! t Section 102 of the Helms-Burtonact Òperverts immigration and travel laws.Ó This directly violatesthe United States ConstitutionÕs Fifth Amendment right to freedom oftravel to any and all US citizens (Roy).
More than US citizens, US businesses and theirsubsidiaries are quite adversely affected. First, US subsidiaries have strictlimits as to the amount of a product they may purchase or sell indirectly to orfrom Cuba. Secondly, US businesses are prohibited from doing businesses withcertain firms in countries outside of Cuba, such as Panama and Jamaica,considered to be Cuban fronts designed to circumvent the US embargo. Theselimitations, combined with the direct trade limitations are stifling possibleUS economic gains.
In a study in 1988, it was found that if the USbegan trading with Cuba, US corporations could sell between $1.3 and $2 billionin the first year alone. This would late! r increase to between $4.3 and $6.5billion yearly (Jones). More recently, the Center for International Policyreleased a study stating that the removal of the embargo would translate to a$1 billion increase in US output in the first year alone. The study also statedthat the US airline industry would also receive a $400 million boost in salesfrom sales of flights to Cuba (Carter). Furthermore, it should be noted thatprior to the embargo, a whopping 74 percent of CubaÕs imports came fromthe US. In addition to increased economic output, US prices for such food itemsas sugar would be significantly lowered (Castro-Marino). But obviously thesesignificant benefits to the US are not reason enough to remove the sanctions onCuba that have been robbing the US economy of possible gains for the past 40years.
V.
What exactly has the embargo accomplished since itsimplementation 40 years ago? It has had no influence on the still communistCastro-led Cuban government. Cuba is still being found guilty of numerous humanrights violations. The Cuban economy is still failing. Cubans are still beingrobbed of their wages. How much time does this embargo need to work?
Proponents of the embargo argue that although theembargo was implemented 40 years ago, Cuba did not feel the intended effectsuntil fairly recently. From 1962 to 1990, the Soviet Union provided Cuba withsome $100 to $150 billion in aid. This does not include another yearly $1billion or more in military aid (DeVarona 21). However, in 1991, Cuba stoppedreceiving aid, and this, the proponents argue, is when the embargo should beconsidered to have truly been implemented. Although this argument has worked inthe past to refute the lack of effectiveness of the embargo, it is reaching apoint ! where it no longer is valid. It has now been over a decade since theSoviet aid to Cuba ceased, yet still no positive results can be seen. The onlynoticeable change that has occurred is the increased poverty level of the Cubanpeople. It seems obvious now that any money kept from Cuba is coming almostdirectly out of the hands of the Cuban people, and not Castro. Not until theCubans reach dangerous levels of poverty, with no money left for Castro todeprive them of, will this affect CastroÕs regime.
It seems clear that the Cuban trade embargo has missedits target. Senator Robert Torricelli said the Helms-Burton Act wouldÒwreak havoc on the islandÓ (Sierra). What Senator RobertTorricelli did not realize is that a more accurate statement would be that theHelms-Burton would Òwreak havoc on the Cuban people.Ó
Cubans already desire changes in their country;there is no need to pr! omote a change to democracy to the Cuban people Ðthey already want it. The Valera Project, for example, was a petition thatasking the Cuban National Assembly for a referendum that would ask Cubans ifthey favor such things as owning their own businesses or voting in governmentofficials. The petition collected over 11,020 signatures in a country thatsuppresses government criticism (ÒLift Cuba Embargo, Carter Tells USÓ).
Yet the Cuban people are feeling the bulk of theeffects. There is a list of shortages the Cuban people must endure because ofthe embargo. Amnesty International reports that Òthe countryÕsstock of medicines...was adversely affected by the US embargo.Ó The oilshortage is significant enough to force Cubans to ride bicycles, instead ofusing public transportation such as buses. The paper shortage prevents manypapers and magazines from being printed. Even fresh water is scarce at times,l! eaving families with no way to bathe, shave, or flush toilets. Hygieneproducts are nearly impossible to find. There is even a quota on socks: onepair every six months (Parodi). There has been a huge overall drop in thestandard of living, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union(ÒLift Cuba Embargo, Carter Tells USÓ). The per capita income wasaround $2000 in 1959, before the embargo. Today, it is around $120 (ÒUSEmbargo Towards CubaÓ). While all of this cannot be blamed on theembargo, it definitely contributed to the decrease in the standard of living ofthe Cuban people.
Meanwhile, Castro, the one man in Cuba who actuallyhas the power to make changes in the Cuban government, remains unaffected:
ÒThe situation did not affect the standard of living of theruling
elite or Castro. For instance, Fidel Castr! o owns two villas,
variousMercedes-Benz vehicles and is constantly escorted by 35 bodyguards. Yet,
hestill likes to brag about being a Ôslave of the revolutionÕ and toshout the
slogan Ôsocialism or death!ÕÓ
Not only is the embargo not hurting Castro, itmight very well be helping him. First, it offers Castro a convenient excuse tothe Cuban people for CubaÕs faltering economy; Castro can blame theembargo instead of his own failing state-run economy. When, in truth,CastroÕs disastrous mismanagement of the Cuban economy is to blame for alarge portion of CubaÕs economic hardships today (DeVarona 11-13).
Secondly, the United StatesÕ seriousintervention in Cuba increases anti-US sentiment wi! thin the country. Thisanti-US sentiment makes it much easier for Castro to rally the support of theCuban people by identifying the US as the ÒenemyÓ that he isleading them against. Therefore, the embargo is actually strengtheningCastroÕs regime, or at the very least, keeping it alive. By removing theembargo, the US is also removing the ÒenemyÓ label, and thuseliminating the ÒbattleÓ that Castro needs to rally the support ofthe Cuban people. In fact, many Cubans argue that Castro had two US planes shotdown in 1996 because he feared that post-cold-war era Clinton was rethinkingthe embargo. These Cubans argue that Òwhat Castro cannot fathom is lifewithout the embargoÓ (LaFranchi).
Then is it true that if the US were to lift itssanctions on Cuba, the US, third-party countries and investors, and the Cubanpeople would be much better off. By analyzing previous attempts at weakeningth! e embargo, one can see that this is far from reality. For example, in 1976,President Jimmy Carter attempted to weaken the sanctions by relaxing therestrictions on travel to the island in hope of improving CubaÕssituation, both internally and foreign policy. But this was met withCastroÕs sending of 15,000 troops to Ethiopia and increasing aid torevolutionary groups elsewhere in Africa and Central America. Furthermore,Castro allowed 125,000 Cubans to flee to the US Ð but among them werethousands of CubaÕs criminals and mentally ill. (DeVarona 7-9).
And, if this is not evidence enough that simplylifting sanctions would not work, consider where CubaÕs ÒnewmoneyÓ would be spent. When the embargo was put in place, Cuban peoplewere put on a rationing system. However, even after Soviet aid began to nearlycancel out the effects of the embargo, Cubans remained on the rationing system.This Soviet ai! d was funneled into CastroÕs regime and did not help theCuban people. (DeVarona 7-9). So who can safely conclude that Castro will notmismanage the flood of Ònew moneyÓ that will come to Cuba as aresult of the removal of the embargo?
VI. Conclusion
Clearly, maintaining the embargo will continue toharm the Cuban people more than it places pressure on Fidel Castro and hisstrict regime to change. Also, lifting the embargo seems to do nothing sinceCuba and its people will truly be at the mercy of the strict regime kept byFidel Castro, who will truly have no incentive to change if the embargo islifted.
It is unclear whether the US should continue toseek a change in the Cuban government for the sake of its people, either bylifting the embargo or keeping it in place. Other options, such as ! US military pressure on Cuba havefailed in the past. It seems thatthe US has two choices: either maintain the embargo, and take up the difficulttask of providing aid directly to the Cuban people, or attempt to reopen thediplomatic communication lines between itself and Cuba, and perhaps offergovernmental support in exchange for positive, more democratic governmentalchanges. The fact remains, however, that the embargo cannot and should not bethe United StatesÕ only tool for promoting change in Cuba.
Works Cited
ÒAmnestyInternational
Report 2002.Ó Amnesty International. Onl! ine. 22 Nov.2002.
http://www.amnesty.org
Carter,Tom. ÒEmbargo of Cuba Unlikely to End.Ó Washington Times.Online. 17 July 2002.
Castro-Marino,Soraya. The United States and Cuba: Possibilities for Trade Relations in theNineties. Havana: Univ. of Havana, 1992.
ÒCubaUses UN Platform to Denounce US Embargo.Ó The Militant. Online. 2Nov. 2002.
DeVarona,Adolfo Leyva. Propaganda and Reality: A Look at the U.S. Embargo AgainstCastroÕs Cuba. Florida: Cuban American National Foundation, 1994.
Jones,Kirby.
Opportunities for US-Cuban Trade. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ,1988.
LaFranchi,Howard.
ÒAmericaÕs Embargo of Cuba: What Result After 35 Years?ÓThe Christian Science
Monitor. Online. 25 Sept. 1997.
ÒLiftCuba
Embargo, Carter Tells US.Ó BBC News Online. Online. 15 May2002.
Officeof
the United States Trade Representative. 1996 National Trade Estimate: TheArab
League Boycott of Israel.
http://www.ustr.gov
Parodi,Francisco.
ÒUS Should Reestablish Relations With Cuba.Ó DailyBeacon. Online. 5 Sept. 1995.
Roy,Joaquin.
Cuba, the United States, and the Helm! s-Burton Doctrine:International
Reactions. Florida: Univ. Press, 2000.
Sierra,J.A.
ÒThe Timetable: History of Cuba.Ó Online. Aug 2002.
http://www.historyofcuba.com
Trump,Donald.
ÒA Choice for Human Rights.Ó Miami Herald. Online. 25 June1999.
UnitedStates.
Dept. of State. International Information Programs. Cuban Libertyand Democratic
Solidarity Act of 1996.
ÒUSEmbargo
Towards Cuba.Ó No Castro. Online.
http://www.nocastro.com/embargo/embargo.htm