WHEN YOU can get the Pope, the head of the Nation of Islam, a former Democratic President, a Republican congressman and 183 countries all to agree on a single issue, people need to pay attention.? Since the early 1960s, the United States has exercised an economic and travel embargo against the country of Cuba. Though it is a complex directive, the core aim of the embargo is to ban commercial trade with the island and to prohibit Americans from travelling there. Though the law -- it was codified by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act -- still enjoys bipartisan support in Congress, an increasingly large number of people are criticizing the policy. The diverse coalition mentioned above helps to illustrate the variety of reasons that support ending the embargo. ?
Perhaps the most outspoken criticism against the economic sanctions comes from the international community. Each year since 1992, the United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution condemning the embargo. The margin of approval for the resolution is generally gargantuan. In 2006, for example, member states passed the measure 183-4. Who were the four dissenters?Siding with the United States were Israel and two small Pacific island countries.
This is not to suggest that America should always give in to the United Nations. It is naturally a government's responsibility to protect its citizens and their interests first and foremost. However, it is difficult to conduct diplomacy when such a vast majority of countries align against so few. Likewise, it is hypocritical for the United States to chastise rogue states for defying international guidelines while we ourselves resist compliance with global standards. This is especially true when facing a 179 country deficit in votes. If the political stakes are not convincing enough, the price paid domestically should be. Ron Paul argued before the House of Representatives that the embargo was denying his state's agriculture and industries a nearby market: "Every market we close to our nation's farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers." Remember, trade restrictions work both ways. While the effect is clearly more devastating to the island than to us, sanctioning Cuba means American interests are denied the benefits of global commerce as well.
So in light of these concerns, clearly the United States must have some pretty strong arguments in favor of the embargo. Well, we used to. The sanctions were put in place primarily as a reaction to the budding relationship between Cuba and the USSR in the early 1960s. With tensions high and nuclear warfare in the back of everyone's mind, halting trade and travel to Cuba made some sense. Times have changed though, and so have circumstances. The fall of the USSR spelled out doom for the communist coalition. These days, the island has essentially no military capabilities, and save for Venezuela and the FARC in Colombia, also lacks any meaningful influence in world affairs. . In short, Cuba poses little threat to the United States politically or militarily.
This all begs one question: What exactly does Washington intend to accomplish with the embargo these days? The stated purpose, according to the 1992 law mentioned above, is "bringing democracy to the Cuban people". A noble cause, but the method is ineffective. The United States hoped to suffocate Fidel Castro's regime and force its collapse from within. After nearly 50 years of sanctions, I think we can all agree that this did not -- and will not -- happen. In practice, we are actually harming this objective. First off, the embargo gives Castro an easy scapegoat for his country's widespread poverty. Instead of focusing the blame on his own government's poor track record with economic and social liberty, the United States becomes public enemy number one -- not a good recipe for promoting democratization.
Additionally, many of the regulations included in the Helms-Burton Act, which expanded the embargo, further damage Cuba's progress. Provisions in the legislation include prohibiting American television broadcast to the island, as well as attempting to bar Cuba from any international financial institutions. These regulations are detrimental to the goal of transformation. Isolation does not foster change; in fact, it only succeeds in bolstering ideological factions. The best way to trounce faulty logic is to challenge it in open forums of competing ideas, such as global organizations.
Though the case for ending the embargo may be perceived as a liberal position, it harkens to conservative values as well. It is particularly appealing to free market advocates, as well as those who support a less restrictive government role in the lives of ordinary citizens. All in all, lifting the sanctions can benefit everyone involved. Supporters of this position include Louis Farrakhan, the late Pope John Paul II, former President Jimmy Carter and a slew of religious groups in United States. As Congressman Paul put it, "history clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked -- when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies." Right on, Ron.
Ross Lawrence is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 20 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
