The United States embargo against Cuba: origins and implications

Cuban Embargo

American-Cuban Sanctions

Implications for the Future

The United States has a long and complicated history with Cuba that dates back over 100 years (Ciment 1115). The United States assumed occupancy over Cuba after defeating the Spanish at the end of the 1898 Spanish-American War. Cuba became an independent country in 1902, although the United States continued to delegate power and control over Cuba's affairs through the Piatt Amendment. Supervised elections began in 1909, but in 1952 dictator Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar was elected which changed the political climate of the country. Batista soon proved to be a true enemy of the Cuban people with many corrupt policies and unfair political maneuvers. He was eventually driven out by Fidel Castro in 1959.

Castro's rise to power could not be considered friendly or in the best interest of peaceful relations between Cuba and the United States. In addition to the mistreatment of the Cuban people, Castro assumed domination over all U.S. owned businesses in the country in 1960, leading to a break in diplomacy with America and paving the way for the 1962 trade embargo that still persists today (Zelikow 317).

The United States hoped that the restriction on foreign exchange would help end Cuban communism; however, the effect was quite opposite. Prior to the embargo, nearly 75% of Cuba's foreign trade had been with America ("Cuba: U.S. Moves to Change" 4). Rather than comply under the embargo, Castro simply turned to other trade partners and alternative markets (Durand and Mike 35). Specifically, Cuba turned to the United States' foremost rival in the Cold War -- the Soviet Union -- which was interpreted as a threat by the American government (Padgett et al. 62).

The Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, backed by then U.S. President John F. Kennedy, sent a strong message to Fidel Castro. The charge was carried out by Cuban exiles who opposed the dictator. The faction ultimately lost and the move only encouraged Castro's hostility by prompting him to formally declare Cuba as a communist country and Soviet ally (Rumbaut and Rumbaut 132). The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis further added to the hostility and division between America and Cuba.

The trade embargo against Cuba continues today, although a series of small adjustments and amendments have been made over the years (Padgett et al. 62). U.S. presidents across both political parties have continued to support Cuban sanctions. Bill Clinton instituted the Helms- Burton Act in 1996 which sought to penalize foreign companies that engage in relations with Cuba (LaFranchi 4). The move was designed to place economic hardships on Cuba's business partners by limiting their ability to also do business with the United States, but it set off hostile reactions from Cuban citizens and negative global perceptions of America's intentions (Smith 19). Clinton did other things to attempt to promote progress with Cuba in the mid-1990s -- more lenient travel guidelines, increased arts and cultural exchanges, sports initiatives, and better communications (Becker 5). However, the fact that the over-arching legislation did not change was considered by Cubans (and even many Americans) to be a re-enforcement of historical resentments and unwillingness to move past the days of the Cold War.

Today, there exists a very strong and powerful Cuban lobby group in Florida that supports all Cuban sanctions (LaFranchi 4). However, sentiments towards Cuba appear to be changing. Communism is no longer the intense threat it once was and many sanctions are now being re-evaluated for their merit, significance and relevance (Ciment 1115). The Obama administration has already made some travel and the ability to send monetary support to Cuban relatives much easier than in years past. Even these small steps towards social change and reforms in diplomacy have been met with heavy criticism and resistance from opposing political groups and the Florida-based Cuban lobby.

This paper examines the relevance of Cuban sanctions today given shifting political climates in both countries. With United States political strategies moving away from the days of the Cold War, there is a greater outcry than ever before to put an end to Cuban sanctions (Jenalia 12). There are many debatable issues related to this discussion: how sanctions impact Cuban citizens, the effectiveness and legality of sanctions, the economic benefits of removing sanctions, and the potential that exists today for positive relations. This paper explores these topic areas and also where possible advancements may be possible.

Cuban Citizens and the Trade Embargo

The United States embargo did not alter the direction of Cuban political movements towards communism; however it has severely impacted the country's economy (Barry 151). Cuba is an impoverished country hit hard by the recent global economic recession. Critics of sanctions argue that the current trade restrictions cost Cuba nearly $2 billion in business opportunities and international loans (Smith 19). Many countries similar in size and scope to Cuba have benefited from economic relations with America. For Cuba this trade networking is no longer an option, which ultimately works to keep the economy depressed.

Arguably, the victims in this picture are the Cuban people who lack the resources they need to lead more progressive, secure and stable lives (Barry 152). Access to resources readily available in the United States such as medications, medical equipment and preventive care are also less available to Cubans causing unnecessary suffering (153). Furthermore, critics of U.S. imposed sanctions cite that America's refusal to trade with other nations considered Cuban supporters or sympathizers further jeopardizes economic advancements and access to resources that could benefit the Cuban people (154).

Supporters of sanctions point out that all communist regimes are subject to economic hardship and that the U.S. imposed sanctions cannot be held solely responsible for the adversities suffered by Cuban citizens at the hands of their leader (Padgett et al. 62). Some question whether the removal of the trade embargo would have a relevant impact on the social conditions the Cuban people are faced with today (Barry 154). Ultimately, the sanctions function to pressure Cuba into economic and political reforms that will most directly result in improvements in the economy and general community health for citizens (151). The goal is to restore democratic order and remove corrupt and unjust leaders from power. Although the sanctions have made no lasting change in the nature of the political climate in the country, the U.S. government continues to remain steadfast in its "wearing down" of the country's rulers in the hope that change will be created.

Sanction Legality

The United Nations (U.N.) Charter has very specific laws regarding freedom of navigation and trade. Critics of the U.S. sanctions on Cuba cite the embargo as a violation of the U.N. Charter and damaging to America's international image and reputation ("Cuba: U.S. Moves to Change" 4). It is also the contention of many that the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 is extra-territorial because its treads on business interactions between Cuba and other nations who may also wish to do business with the United States (Rumbaut and Rumbaut 141). As Durand and McGuire point out, Cuban sanctions seem to defy international law in a way that signals disrespect to others across the globe (38).

There have been several proposed U.N. resolutions that condemn America's sanctions on Cuba, but most have fallen flat with the Security Council and have not been enacted (Rumbaut and Rumbaut 149). It can also be argued that Cuba is not entirely innocent and has defied some of the same U.N. resolutions it has accused the United States of. In particular, Cubans have put up armed blockades around embassies in its capital preventing citizens from seeking asylum (151). Cuban people are not afforded this right, despite U.N. disapproval.

Sanctions and the Economy

Most everyone agrees that lifting the U.S. embargo would greatly help Cuba's struggling economy. Merchandises would trade freely between the nations and result in improved employment for both Cuba and America (Smith 19). Automobiles, consumer products, electronics, tobacco, and clothing would be accessible by Cubans and offer a boost to the lagging U.S. economy (Barry 151). Further, Cuba would see a major transformation in its basic economic and business functioning. The proximity of the U.S. To Cuba offers a major benefit if the trade embargo were lifted. Currently, product shipments from China (for example) need at least six-weeks from transit. Conversely, shipments from Texas to Cuba would require little more than a week (Jenalia 13).

America could also realize major profits for farming exports. A very conservative relaxation of sanctions took place in 2000 and by 2010 sales of farm products to Cuba stood at nearly $350M (Rumbaut and Rumbaut 138). In rough, economic times there would be great benefit to America if free trade with Cuba were restored. Florida ports no longer hold treasured Cuban cigars and Texas ports lost many major imports of sugar and rice when the trade embargo took effect (144). It is estimated that U.S. trade with Cuba could be worth $2.6 billion (Smith 21).

Anti-Cuban critics believe, however, that even if sanctions were fully lifted, there is a great chance that Cuba will continue to simply source its products elsewhere, just as it does now (Becker 11). They posit that trade between the U.S. And Cuba will never reach its full potential and in the larger scheme of things the volume of business is relatively insignificant compared to our business dealings with other countries (Padgett et al. 62). For example, the Soviet Union has always supported Cuba with trade incentives and subsidies. In addition, Cuba's ties to Venezuela offer another workaround for them to obtain skilled workers such as educators and medical professionals. Cuba is still very oil rich and can leverage it for trade purposes; trade with the U.S. is not necessary. Many argue that at this point it is not wise to give up our national commitment to the freedom of the Cuban people just for economic gain (Rumbaut and Rumbaut 150). They believe it is better to stand firm in our conviction that Cubans deserve more than corrupt and oppressive dictatorship.

Looking Ahead: Sanctions in the Future

It is worth noting that most sanctions are supported by a very small group of Cuban Americans in the swing state of Florida who have grown in power and influence during presidential elections (Becker 7). A Republican constituency in Florida also fights to keep sanctions in place. However, most Americas oppose the Cuban trade embargo. A 2009 national opinion poll asked the question: "Do you think the United States should or should not re-establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba?" Nearly 70% responded "yes" (12). Yet Washington leaders continue to focus on policies that relate mostly to national security vs. public opinion.

Many argue that the Cold War has long since ended and that the United States should abandon its old position and entertain a fresh approach to working through issues with Cuba. President Barack Obama has been urged to lift Cuban sanctions throughout his time in office (LaFranchi 4). However, he has spoken out strongly against the treatment of Cuban citizens and indicated many times that unless there is more progress toward democratic freedoms for people in the country (i.e., freedom of the press, freedom for political prisoners, etc.) there cannot be further serious discussion regarding lifting the embargo or other restrictions (Becker 20). Cuba, on the other hand, has been steadfast in its position to rule as it sees fit and remain a communist nation.

As stated previously, President Obama has taken small steps to help facilitate communications and exchanges between Cuban-Americans and their families on the island. Many believe this is more of an effort on behalf of the Obama administration to showcase how the President is nothing like former President Bush and also signal to the rest of Latin America and other U.S. adversaries that the times, and policies, are changing (Smith 20). In addition, the slow economy in both countries presents a business case for resuming open and free trade. Still, it remains a complicated matter and appears that the trade embargo will continue until a completely new Cuban regime comes into power and signals its readiness to work towards major change (Becker 22). A new American policy direction may come one day, but as history has shown, our national leaders will likely hold their position on sanctions until our deeply held tenets of "freedom and justice for all" reach Cuban shores.