Ending Embargo Won't Free Cuba
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 2/22/2008
Diplomacy: Now that Fidel Castro has resigned, calls for lifting the embargo on U.S. trade with Cuba grow louder. Bad idea. It not only forgets why the ban is there at all, but also fortifies the Castro family's grip on power.
It didn't take long for the most naive of the Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama, a critic of the 1962 U.S. embargo, to call for its end.
"If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo of the last five decades," he said last week.
Sounds like a fresh start, but in reality, it's no different from existing U.S. policy toward Cuba. The U.S., which put the embargo in place and tightened it after Castro confiscated American properties, murdered U.S. citizens and tried to launch a nuclear attack against us, will indeed drop the embargo if democratic changes occur. That's the same as the candidate of "change."
So the nuance in Obama's statement comes from his repeated criticism of the embargo and in his emphasis on lifting it. "It's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure," he said Thursday.
His calls for democracy there are window-dressing, and a double standard to his stated opposition to approving vastly improved Colombia for a free trade pact. Worse, his record voting in the Senate against TV Marti, which would provide Cubans with real news, suggests he's insincere about promoting democracy, to say the least.
But he's not alone. Pundits and lobbyists have also stepped up calls to give the Castro brothers what they want and end the trade embargo now that Raul is running things and rumored to be a Chinese-style economic liberal. Like Obama, most package their calls as a democracy move in this context, with varying sincerity.
It's a smoke screen. There's nothing in the dynastic succession of Raul Castro to head Cuba's government — while his brother Fidel retains leadership of the Communist party — to suggest that Cuba will liberalize. Oh, there may be cosmetic changes — a handful of Cuba's 230 political prisoners might be released, but no solemn rights to read, organize, associate with or buy what one wants will happen. Those kinds of reforms would threaten the regime.
Calls to end the embargo are rooted in Castro's own propaganda. Cuba's oligarchs blame communism's failures on the embargo — not their own central planning, excessive control and waste of human talent.
In reality, the U.S. trade embargo has little to do with that, and is very mild. It lets U.S. food and medicine go to Cuba, freeing the Castro brothers of any need to create a viable economy. Cuba trades with every country in the world already, and many ship U.S. goods to Cuba indirectly. Still, it's a sump of poverty and backwardness.
Embargo in place, the U.S. is still Cuba's largest food supplier, shipping $2 billion since 2001, $438 million last year alone. Medical supplies totaled an estimated $20 million. Private aid was $270 million, and exiles sent $1 billion back last year.
But Cuba apologists call the embargo off-kilter because the U.S. trades with other communist regimes, like China and Vietnam.
True, but conditions aren't the same. Both China and Vietnam want to be friends and liberalized their regimes in 1976 and 1986, respectively, creating vast private sectors before any trade began. When a U.S. citizen buys a Made In China radio at Wal-Mart, he's strengthening China's private sector — and future democracy.
Cuba hasn't a scintilla of that in place. Its military (led by Raul Castro) controls all business in Cuba. There is no private sector at all.
In fact, penury is the sole spur toward liberalization in Cuba.
When the Soviets cut off $3 billion in annual aid in 1991, the Castro brothers briefly let people operate restaurants and hostels from their houses. When Venezuela's petrotyrant began shipping Cuba $1 billion in de facto free oil, the restaurants were shut down.
Meanwhile, six days after two congressmen proposed a bill to lighten the embargo on March 12, 2003, Castro launched his hardest crackdown on dissidents in years, imprisoning 75. It's a pattern.
There's little doubt that Raul and his cronies would act the same way to new U.S. moves to open trade, because they control the entire economy. They wouldn't just line their own pockets; they'd use that power to end freedoms and step up their hostility to the U.S.
That's a problem we don't need. Unless Raul Castro permits hard freedoms, like a private sector, free information, democratic elections and an end to imprisoning those who speak out, ending the embargo will benefit only him. It's about time the naive proponents of what the Castro regime wants grasp this reality.
What's your .02 cents?
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 2/22/2008
Diplomacy: Now that Fidel Castro has resigned, calls for lifting the embargo on U.S. trade with Cuba grow louder. Bad idea. It not only forgets why the ban is there at all, but also fortifies the Castro family's grip on power.
It didn't take long for the most naive of the Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama, a critic of the 1962 U.S. embargo, to call for its end.
"If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo of the last five decades," he said last week.
Sounds like a fresh start, but in reality, it's no different from existing U.S. policy toward Cuba. The U.S., which put the embargo in place and tightened it after Castro confiscated American properties, murdered U.S. citizens and tried to launch a nuclear attack against us, will indeed drop the embargo if democratic changes occur. That's the same as the candidate of "change."
So the nuance in Obama's statement comes from his repeated criticism of the embargo and in his emphasis on lifting it. "It's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure," he said Thursday.
His calls for democracy there are window-dressing, and a double standard to his stated opposition to approving vastly improved Colombia for a free trade pact. Worse, his record voting in the Senate against TV Marti, which would provide Cubans with real news, suggests he's insincere about promoting democracy, to say the least.
But he's not alone. Pundits and lobbyists have also stepped up calls to give the Castro brothers what they want and end the trade embargo now that Raul is running things and rumored to be a Chinese-style economic liberal. Like Obama, most package their calls as a democracy move in this context, with varying sincerity.
It's a smoke screen. There's nothing in the dynastic succession of Raul Castro to head Cuba's government — while his brother Fidel retains leadership of the Communist party — to suggest that Cuba will liberalize. Oh, there may be cosmetic changes — a handful of Cuba's 230 political prisoners might be released, but no solemn rights to read, organize, associate with or buy what one wants will happen. Those kinds of reforms would threaten the regime.
Calls to end the embargo are rooted in Castro's own propaganda. Cuba's oligarchs blame communism's failures on the embargo — not their own central planning, excessive control and waste of human talent.
In reality, the U.S. trade embargo has little to do with that, and is very mild. It lets U.S. food and medicine go to Cuba, freeing the Castro brothers of any need to create a viable economy. Cuba trades with every country in the world already, and many ship U.S. goods to Cuba indirectly. Still, it's a sump of poverty and backwardness.
Embargo in place, the U.S. is still Cuba's largest food supplier, shipping $2 billion since 2001, $438 million last year alone. Medical supplies totaled an estimated $20 million. Private aid was $270 million, and exiles sent $1 billion back last year.
But Cuba apologists call the embargo off-kilter because the U.S. trades with other communist regimes, like China and Vietnam.
True, but conditions aren't the same. Both China and Vietnam want to be friends and liberalized their regimes in 1976 and 1986, respectively, creating vast private sectors before any trade began. When a U.S. citizen buys a Made In China radio at Wal-Mart, he's strengthening China's private sector — and future democracy.
Cuba hasn't a scintilla of that in place. Its military (led by Raul Castro) controls all business in Cuba. There is no private sector at all.
In fact, penury is the sole spur toward liberalization in Cuba.
When the Soviets cut off $3 billion in annual aid in 1991, the Castro brothers briefly let people operate restaurants and hostels from their houses. When Venezuela's petrotyrant began shipping Cuba $1 billion in de facto free oil, the restaurants were shut down.
Meanwhile, six days after two congressmen proposed a bill to lighten the embargo on March 12, 2003, Castro launched his hardest crackdown on dissidents in years, imprisoning 75. It's a pattern.
There's little doubt that Raul and his cronies would act the same way to new U.S. moves to open trade, because they control the entire economy. They wouldn't just line their own pockets; they'd use that power to end freedoms and step up their hostility to the U.S.
That's a problem we don't need. Unless Raul Castro permits hard freedoms, like a private sector, free information, democratic elections and an end to imprisoning those who speak out, ending the embargo will benefit only him. It's about time the naive proponents of what the Castro regime wants grasp this reality.
What's your .02 cents?
