Embargo on Cuba

Cuban Trade Embargo -- another Roadblock to Globalism To be sure, the concept of "globalization" is a confusing one. Although a world in which trade is not restricted between nations, and the earth becomes a kind of "united economic entity," ruled by the equalizing nature of the market is a pleasant image, many believe that such a "pie in the sky" view of globalization is horribly wrong -- idealistic, unlikely, and even dangerous.

Indeed, whereas political leaders of "first world" nations are quick to tout the benefits of a globalizing world, others, like writer Joseph Stiglitz, believe that "integration with the global economy works just fine when sovereign countries define the terms. It works disastrously when terms are dictated." (Stiglitz, 2002). Unfortunately, this is exactly the position in which so called "third world" countries find themselves.

Even worse, when these countries are also under the thumb of an economic embargo, the results can be even more disastrous -- both "in country," as well as globally. Much like Iraq, pre-war, the nation of Cuba has suffered from years of economic hardship due to a trade embargo imposed by the United States. The embargo was established as a full scale trade embargo on February 3, 1962, as a result of the birth of Fidel Castro's Soviet-allied communist regime.

However, as a result of this embargo, much more than purely economic hardships began to emerge, and Cuban citizens began to experience drastic rises in poverty and suffering. As a result, especially in today's post cold-war world, many wonder if the increasingly globalized world economy has any use for the continued embargo of Cuba -- as well as if the negative effects on the economies of Cuba and the world are adversely affected as a result of its continued existence.

Howard La Franchi commented on this issue in his 1997 article, "America's Embargo of Cuba: What Result After 35 Years?" where he raised the question of just how Cuba and the world is faring economically (as well as ethically and socially), as a result of the Cuban trade embargo. Interestingly, according to La Franchi, not only does Cuba suffer from its position as a "small fish" in the global pond, but also suffers from the additional pressures of the embargo.

Indeed, this is a sentiment echoed by Cuban economist, George Carriazo, who says, "The effect of the embargo is not what you see, it's what you don't see," he goes on, "We have Coca-Cola, but it can't come from the U.S., so it has to come from farther away. What the embargo does is make everything for us more expensive, more difficult." (La Franchi, 1997).

To be sure, economic life is extremely difficult within Cuba -- ranging from high consumer prices to high fuel costs (for example, Cubana Airlines must not only pay higher materials prices, but higher fuel prices as a result of being unable to fly over U.S. territory). (La Franchi) In addition, access to health care, technology, and opportunities for global movement of its citizens is also adversely effected, so much so that Cuban sugarcane farmers are forced to plow their fields with oxen rather than tractors.

Interestingly, the historic record of trade embargos with an intent to force political issues (regime change in Cuba, compliance with post gulf-war weapons inspections in Iraq) is notoriously ineffectual. Indeed, although he Soviet Union collapsed long ago, Fidel Castro remains fully in power in spite of trade sanctions (many might say due to trade sanctions that have weakened the people).

If, then, the embargo is not effective, why continue? In fact, this question is even more puzzling when one considers the fact that in today's global world, Cuba's economic woes affect the economies of outside nations as well, especially the United States.

After all, with the void left by the powerhouse that was the Soviet Union, Cuba is forced to attempt an entry into the global economy without the benefit of trade (either way) with the nation that many consider to be the force that drives the emerging globalized economy itself -- the United States.

Not only does this place Cuba in the position of having to resort to unnatural trade (in defiance of free global trade) with higher cost imports, but the United States must lose opportunities to import and export goods and services to Cuba. Indeed, many have described the Cuban embargo as "porous," allowing other nations to benefit from the desperation of the Cubans. Not only does this fly in the face of the notion of globalized trade, but it sets the economic scales even further out of balance.

Unfortunately, poor nations like Cuba face a tough road in entering the globalized economy. Not only are they faced with high debt and an inability to regain solid footing without the interference of (patently U.S.) outside influences -- a kind of economic colonialism represented by organizations like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank, but when they are placed under embargo, they are forced to exist in a way "dictated to them," as Joseph Stiglist notes.

This pared with "conditions" for admission into the world economy (or for survival), set by entities like the IMF, who, in effect, according to Stiglist, believe, "We in the establishment, we in the North who run our capital markets, know best. Do what we tell you to do, and you will prosper." Sets up a difficult reality.

Unfortunately, the problem with the arrogance represtented by organizations like the IMF is that it damages the global economy for everyone, again Stiglist writes, "...if one is to have an external disciplinarian, one should choose a good disciplinarian who knows what.