This essay argues that the United States trade embargo on Cuba, established in 1962, represents a significant obstacle to equitable globalization. Drawing on the work of economist Joseph Stiglitz and journalist Howard La Franchi, the paper traces the embargo's economic consequences for Cuban citizens — from inflated consumer prices and fuel costs to limited access to healthcare and technology — while questioning the embargo's effectiveness as a political tool. The essay further situates Cuba's predicament within a broader critique of institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, arguing that externally imposed economic conditions constitute a new form of colonialism that ultimately harms the global economy as a whole.
The paper exemplifies the use of embedded quotations to advance an argumentative chain. Rather than simply summarizing sources, the writer deploys each quotation as a stepping stone — Stiglitz's critique of dictated terms introduces the Cuba case, Carriazo's observation personalizes the economic damage, and Castro's own words provide a rhetorical close. This technique shows how primary and secondary voices can be orchestrated to support a thesis progressively.
The essay opens with a broad theoretical framing of globalization before narrowing to the specific case of Cuba. It then examines the embargo's origins, its concrete economic effects, and its political ineffectiveness. The argument widens again to consider Cuba's place in the post-Cold War global economy, before concluding with a structural critique of institutions like the IMF. The conclusion returns to the paper's core claim that distorted trade harms all nations, providing a satisfying circular structure.
The concept of "globalization" is a confusing one. Although the image of a world in which trade flows freely between nations — one in which the earth becomes a kind of united economic entity governed by the equalizing force of the market — is an appealing vision, many believe that such a utopian view of globalization is dangerously idealistic. Political leaders of wealthy nations are quick to tout the benefits of an integrating world economy, yet others are far more skeptical. Writer and economist Joseph Stiglitz argues 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 precisely the position in which so-called "third world" countries so often find themselves. When these countries are also subject to an economic embargo, the results can be even more disastrous — both domestically and globally.
Much like Iraq in the pre-war period, Cuba has suffered from years of economic hardship caused by a trade embargo imposed by the United States. The embargo was established as a full-scale trade restriction on February 3, 1962, in response to the rise of Fidel Castro's Soviet-allied communist regime. However, the consequences of this embargo extended well beyond purely economic hardship: Cuban citizens began to experience dramatic increases in poverty and suffering. As a result, particularly in today's post-Cold War world, many question whether the increasingly globalized world economy has any use for the continued embargo of Cuba — and whether its ongoing existence adversely affects both the Cuban and global economies.
Howard La Franchi examined this issue in his 1997 article "America's Embargo of Cuba: What Result After 35 Years?" raising questions about how Cuba and the world were faring economically, ethically, and socially as a result of the embargo. According to La Franchi, Cuba suffers not only from its position as a small player in the global economy, but also from the additional pressures the embargo creates. This sentiment is echoed by Cuban economist George Carriazo, who explains: "The effect of the embargo is not what you see, it's what you don't see. 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).
Economic life inside Cuba is indeed extremely difficult. Consumer prices are high, fuel costs are elevated — for example, Cubana Airlines must pay higher prices for both materials and fuel because it is prohibited from flying over U.S. territory — and access to healthcare, technology, and global mobility is severely curtailed. The situation has become so severe that Cuban sugarcane farmers are forced to plow their fields with oxen rather than tractors (La Franchi, 1997).
The historical record of trade embargoes intended to force political outcomes — whether regime change in Cuba or compliance with post-Gulf War weapons inspections in Iraq — is notoriously poor. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro remained firmly in power in defiance of decades of trade sanctions. Many observers argue that the sanctions may have actually strengthened Castro's political position by weakening the Cuban people and providing a convenient external enemy to blame for the nation's hardships. If the embargo has proven ineffective as a political instrument, the question of why it continues becomes increasingly difficult to answer.
La Franchi, Howard. (1997). "America's Embargo of Cuba: What Result After 35 Years?" The Christian Science Monitor. Thursday, September 25. Retrieved April 10, 2004.
Stewart, Phil. (1998). "Castro blasts globalization." Reuters. August 31. Retrieved April 10, 2004.
Stiglitz, Joseph. (2002). "Globalism's Discontents." The American Prospect Magazine. Winter. Retrieved April 10, 2004.
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.