So Castro is stepping down in favor of his brother, Raul. Everyone from left to right seems to be hoping that this will provide an opening for greater engagement with Cuba. Color me unconvinced. Raul is not all that much better than Fidel, from the point of view of US foreign policy. Yes, experts like to say that he's more pragmatic and flexible than his brother . . . but these assertions have a wan quality. Until recently, he was known as the hard core communist to his brother's wishy-washy centrism. The reasons behind the embargo have not substantially changed.
Those reasons are, I should point out, not that it enhances the welfare of the great American public. One might plausibly have argued that the US had a strong national interest in bringing down the regime when it was an instrument of Soviet influence located very close to our shores. But now that Cuba is the communist bloc, it's probably less threatening to the health and safety of Americans than a strike at the Cheez-Its factory in China. We embargo Cuba because a small, but highly motivated bloc of voters in a swing state wants us to.
The embargo should go; it is an embarassing relic. But it almost certainly won't, because domestic policy dictates otherwise. And even if it did, it's not clear to me that it would do much good. The devastating effect of the embargo on the Cuban economy is highly overstated; Cuba's problems are supply-side, not demand side. The benefits of lowering the embargo will probably be not much more than the transportation savings from shipping what little they produce to Florida rather than Europe. It's not even clear that the Cuban government even wants that much more trade. Daniel W. Drezner had an excellent post on this a while back:
As someone who can plausibly claim some genuine expertise on this issue, I'm mildly in favor of lifting the embargo. First, it's clear that forty years of the embargo has not succeeded in overwthrowing Castro. Given that record, trying the engagement track can't make things any worse.
Second, anyone who thinks that engagement will have a dramatic effect on the situation is fooling themselves. The difference between Cuba and China is not just one of size -- it's also a difference in regime. What I wrote earlier this year in reference to North Korea holds with equal force in dealing with Cuba.
This gets to the distinction between a totalitarian and an authoritarian state. China or Singapore fall into the latter camp -- political dissent is stifled, but in other spheres of life there is sufficient breathing froom from state intervention to permit the flowering of pro-market, pro-democratic civil society. North Korea is totalitarian, in the sense that the state control every dimension of social life possible.
In authoritarian societies, the introduction of market forces and international news media can has the potential to transform society in ways that central governments will not be able to anticipate. In totalitarian societies, reform can only take place when the central government favors it. These societies have to take the first steps towards greater openness before any outside force can accelerate the process. Usually, such societies turn brittle and collapse under their own weight....
For the past decade, the DPRK [and Cuban] leadership has been completely consistent about one thing -- it prefers mass famine and total isolation over any threat to the survival of its leadership. Uncontrolled exchange with the West will threaten that leadership. I have no doubt that Pyongyang [and Havana] is enthusiastic about the creation of segmented economic zones where foreign capital would be permitted -- so long as the rest of North Korean [and Cuban] society remained under effective quarrantine.
Another thing to remember is that Raul is himself 76. What effect does this have on negotiations with him?
Where is the nuance in the question of the embargo? There'd probably be more support in the Cuban-American community for dropping the embargo if that were paired with a deal to compensate those whose property was expropriated by the Communists in Cuba. Throw in some sort of assurances that benefits of trade would actually accrue to ordinary Cubans (apparently not the case with current business Cuba does with the rest of the world), and there might be some progress.
To paraphrase Hyman Roth, the Cuban people need a government they can do business with. Here's hoping they can get out of their Maoist Phase, and usher in their Dengian Era.
I think the next Prez will have his hands full with foreign policy decisions.
But Cuba may be a different case. A policy of sending thousands of American tourists to Cuba may do more than more complex political approaches.
I feel compelled to remind you that Ron Paul advocates an end to the embargo. Oh, but wait, you don't like him because he's full of crazy ideas.
The embargo should go.
It hurts both sides (if only slightly) economically. But the bigger reason it should go is influence. We spread American ideas with trade. The effect is gradual, but far preferable to either open warfare or continued isolationism.
Christina: Are you the Christina that's been posting here for a long time? I didn't know you were a Paul-backer.
I think the primary domestic damage arising from the Cuban embargo -- and of course from the Cuban policies that led to it -- is cultural. Up until the 1960s, Cuba and Cubans had claim to a part of this nation's soul. Especially in music and fashion. The evolution of Cuba paralleled that of the US for the first half of this century. Then, suddenly -- no more. Once the embargo is finally lifted, I wonder if and when the cultural rift will be mended.
I always thought sugar subsidies by the US and western Europe hurt Cuba more than the embargo. They crippled their best means of obtaining foreign currency.
There's something sort of quaint about communist Cuba. It is sort of like going to a Renn fair, only in this case, instead of armor, the soldiers wear fatigues and berets with little red stars.
Hmmm.... I have an idea for an amusement park in Cuba.... Ride the Sputnik roller coaster! Knock over the state farm milk bottles and win a stuffed capitalist piglet!
Joking aside, flooding Cuba with American tourists and American goods will turn that country faster than you can say "Viva la Revolucion!". It has been proven over and over that when people start getting a taste of economic freedom, the ideological nonsense is quickly forgotten. Anyone remember Vietnam?
Probably Cuba will start to change just like China did. The only difference is that it's Castro, rather than Mao, who has to pass from the scene. Mere retirement won't do it.
But once he's gone, the example of China will probably convince the Cuban leadership that it is possible to open up the economy and get rich without risking their position of power. (I'd bet they turn out to be wrong, but....)
I always thought sugar subsidies by the US and western Europe hurt Cuba more than the embargo. They crippled their best means of obtaining foreign currency.
Nah, the end of the Cold War killed their best export crop - renting out the army. (1/2 smiley)
I am the long-time reader/commenter Christina and I am a Paul supporter. I've expressed my support of him several times previously.
For the record, I blame communism for Cuba's poverty, not the US embargo. We're a pretty big deal, but it's not like we're the only game around. The embargo just gives Fidel et al a convenient scapegoat for their perennial problems.
Thanks, Christina. Must have missed it.
I can't really blame the exiles for supporting the embargo and wanting some sort of compensation; it just speaks to the political power that a small group can have when it's found an electoral sweet spot.
szr, about the amusement park: that's not funny.
Castro's resignation proves that sanctions are working!
"Anyone remember Vietnam?" szr
The country that, despite recognition, still closely monitors those dangerous people the Mennonites? That has large numbers of imprisoned "cyber-dissidents." Where only two-years-ago financial crimes could warrant the death penalty and where drug-crimes still can?
Their economy has improved and they are freer. However the idea tourists or trade make a country into a free society is not really supported by the evidence. Egypt has had a great deal of tourism, and some degree of trade, for decades. They're not exactly a free society in any normal sense. The UAE doesn't get quite as many Western tourists, but they do manage some and trade a great deal. They're certainly not a free society. Singapore also has had a good deal of both for decades. Singapore was listed by Heritage, or one of those, as the most economically free society. Opposition to the PAP is almost non-existent, speech on domestic matters restricted, and I don't think it was ever a free society.
Still having an embargo on Cuba when we don't on nations just as repressive is weird. Ideally I'd prefer we start embargoing say Uzbekistan than stop embargoing Cuba. Although realistically dropping an embargo on Cuba is the the less risky route.
Vietnam has Mennonites?
According to the Cardozo Law Review, Vietnam has thousands of cultists devoted to Victor Hugo.
"Vietnam has Mennonites?" Maguro.
TR: Yup. When I was a kid there was a series set during the Vietnam War, it wasn't China Beach, that I believe mentioned them. Anyway the following mentions them being recognized. (Although not all of them are recognized even now and I think the independent Mennonites who still face censor)
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5809
"Vietnam has thousands of cultists devoted to Victor Hugo." Reality Man.
TR: This might refer to "Cao Dai", which is much larger than thousands. Although they indicate they do not worship Hugo, but simply consider him a prophet like John the Baptist.
http://www.caodai.org/pages/?pageID=22
The girl in that famous Vietnam-war picture about a napalming was raised Cao Dai. Later she converted to Christianity.
> We embargo Cuba because a small, but highly motivated bloc of voters in a swing state wants us to.
While this is certainly true I think we still have a lot of old cold warriors around that are really annoyed that they could never get rid of Castro. Lifting the embargo would be akin to admitting that he won and they're not going to do that. We'll make some progress on this when one of two things happen: Fidel kicks the bucket and someone not named Castro runs things or we have a generation of politicians that have only read about the cold war in books.
Cuba has many European and Canadian tourists. Has their presence increased freedom in Cuba? Most likely not. First, Fidel takes the lion's share of the salaries of Cubans working in the tourist enclaves. Second, Fidel has made Herculean efforts to segregate the tourists from ordinary Cubans- by and large successful efforts.
Even with the embargo, Cuba buys medicine and food from the US- cash on the barrelhead.
I would agree that if we have an embargo w Cuba, we are being most inconsistent in having a trade imbalance with China that would enable them to buy up a lot of US assets.
No easy answers.
"According to the Cardozo Law Review, Vietnam has thousands of cultists devoted to Victor Hugo."
Posted by Reality Man
I must say, if I were running a totalitarian state, I'd certainly repress any Victor Hugo cults. Elvis cults, or the cult that worships Shakira's ass would be OK, but no Hugo cults.