Is the Cuba embargo defensible?
Fidel’s brother is officially the president of Cuba.33 According to the BBC, “The US said Raul Castro’s appointment offered potential for change but said its embargo would remain until there was a transition to democracy.”
My gut reaction is threefold, and most readers will assess the embargo in at least one of the following ways: (1) It’s a Cold War anachronism. (2) The costs fall on the people, not the dictators. (3) It’s an excuse for incumbent lawmakers to keep their districts on lock.
Yet the pressure of a foreign power matters for democracy promotion. If nobody inside a country has the capacity to make leaders respect democratic institutions, maybe external forces can. I enter the treacherous territory of counterfactuals in suggesting the apparent suppression of an IRI exit poll last month helped Mwai Kibaki steal Kenya’s election.33 Moreover, most would agree the carrot of European Union accession has sped democratization and economic reform in the former Soviet satellites. Diplomacy seems to matter.
The efficacy of the Cuba embargo turns on two questions. One, what are the costs for Raul? We know it contributes to general poverty, but how does it make letting go more attractive for him? Two, does the lack of similar policies by all other powers render useless our own?
If we take democratizing Cuba seriously, there’s a third question: how do we minimize the pain to Castro II of stepping down?3
- HT to S. Taylor of PoliBlog.333
- Some say the poll was flawed, and that’s why it was sealed. I leave judgment to the reader. For now, note how both McClatchy and I have to use the passive voice to describe the poll’s non-release.333
3
av2ts on 26 Feb 2008 at 2:09 am #
Why is it you think the US has the moral responsibility to “democratize” anyone, let alone a country that we have bombed, set fire to, tried to kill popular leaders in, supported a previous horrific dictatorship…
If we are going to do any arm twisting on democracy and human rights it ought to be those dreadful places where we have our hands dirty and some leverage: Ethiopia, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Phillipines, Colombia, etc…
In Cuba just a month ago, more than 95% of all voting age people went to the polls in the rain and defied the opposition by voting (secretly) for their district’s prefered (”unity”) candidate (who had been earlier nominated at public neighborhood level meetings). Everyone knew Raul was set to be President and he got the most votes in the country (98%) - higher than Fidel. Their system is not that perfect, but the Cuban people are more scared of American-led big changes than more modest ones within the Revolution.
Daniel Adams on 26 Feb 2008 at 5:49 am #
av2ts -
Jack can defend himself later, but I don’t think he ever really argued that the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to “democratize” anyone.
While one can make a “moral argument” for why the U.S. should promote democracy, that isn’t necessarily the most effective or best. As we’ve seen repeatedly, perhaps best exemplified by your list of countries, too often the “moral responsibility” of the U.S. is subjugated to what we perceive to be our short-term security interests.
I, personally, believe that there is a moral aspect to why any democratic country should do their best to promote the freedom around the world. I think I also agree with you in so far that I am skeptical in the ability of external forces to “democratize” a country. More importantly, democratic countries should seek to provide support to groups within countries that seek to peacefully change their system of government.
As for your assertion that the Cuban population turned out at 95% in defiance of the opposition, it is almost laughable. First, the Communist Party of Cuba is the only “legal” party. While the municipal elections are are “non-partisan”, candidates who are backed by the Communist government are the only ones able to access the resources able to run a campaign. I could also be wrong, but I believe that candidates are approved by the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. In theory, anyone can nominate a candidate to run, but in practice hardly anyone not party of the Communist Party is able to gain nomination by the CDRS. In the last election, there were 609 candidates - all of whom supported the Castro government - seeking 609 seats. How is that a choice? There is no opposition.
Second, the human rights and economic record of the Castro government is atrocious. I’ll save you from the tedious human rights debate. If you want to defend the Castro regime on these grounds, we can do so in a following comment. More importantly, the Castro government has basically ruining the Castro economy for 50 years. It has shown that it can not generate any semblance of economic growth without receiving generous supports from first the Soviet Union and currently Venezuela and China. Given the countries rich agricultural land and it’s seemingly “top-notch” education system that they repeatedly brag about, this is pathetic and itself almost criminal.
I don’t think the embargo is effective at all. That Castro will probably die peacefully in his bed after 50 years of slaughter and gross mismanagement is the best evidence of that. But, it seems that the domestic political situation in the U.S. is not conducive for a change of course.
av2ts on 26 Feb 2008 at 1:38 pm #
Right now the US is funneling even more millions to internal opposition groups (of a few people) and individuals in Cuba. Cuba uses this as an excuse to be vigilant in the face of what is blatant external subversion. Would the US permit Cuba or Iran to fund groups and individuals who were for the overthrow of the US Govt?? Of course not. In Cuba they have even more reason to not allow any US intervention in their internal affairs, give our policy of regime change, Plan for Transformation and past violent actions. Once this interventionist of the US ceases, then we can turn our attention to outdated Cuban national security laws. Its worth noting that most, if not all, those few dozen folks who Amnesty calls prisoners of conscience were on the US Govt payroll, or at least took meetings with our Embassy. All funding them does is prevent changes in Cuba from taking place by solidifying the hard-line view. Plus these people making money from writing half-true articles for Miami publication have exactly ZERO credibility with the Cuban people.
While it appears you understand the basics of Cuban elections (that they are non-partisan) your idea that one needs money to run is incorrect. There is no campaigning as we think of, only posting of one’s resume and achievements everywhere in the voting district. There are public meetings as well. Membership in the party has not role, nor does the CDR. Anyone could be nominated and anyone could be voted up or down. All candidates must get at least 50% of the vote or a new candidate is nominated. The choice occurs at this level, not in the voting booth. That said Party and CDR leaders often have a great deal of prestige and their opinion probably is taken quite seriously. It is a flawed system, but what system is perfect? Is ours, where only millionaires can run, really any better? I read an article yesterday quoting a disgruntled trash collector in Cuba. The next paragraph quoted a newly elected Parlimentarian who was a Sanitation worker. When the US elects a garbage man to the House I will reconsider that statement.
Do you believe health, education, housing, employment and food are basic human rights? Cuba does. The US vetoes attempts to include such things in UN Human Rights documents and we have no such rights in our Constitution like Cuba does. Of course other rights are lacking… but again I would say that US agression that continues today is the principle cause of those policies.
As far as your economic argument, I would suggest you consult GDP figures. Cuba has actually outperformed the region for a long time, not counting the disasterous early 90s when the USSR fell. They are growing at 8% this year and at least 10% last year (CIA figures). The subsidized oil from Venezuela and trade deals with China are no different than what other countries in the region receive (with the exception of the Doctor for oil program. Venezuela had a massive shortage in its slums and rural areas that Cuba fulfilled. The lives saved are priceless, no?). Subsidized Venezuelan oil helps (again, the same financing deal that Jamaica and everyone else gets) but the energy revolution that Fidel brought forth has saved much more money. Growth is coming from hitech sectors and commodities, as well as state led construction of housing and infrastructure (they built more housing per capita than the US last year).