U.S.-Cuba Trade Embargo: Policy, Politics, and Normalization

The Case Against Tightening the Cuba Embargo

Should the United States seek to tighten its economic grip on Cuba? In short, no. In a purely abstract discussion of U.S. foreign policy, it might seem morally correct to continue the embargo against Cuba, given Cuba's problematic human rights record. However, the U.S. engages in open trade with a number of nations that systematically violate their citizens' human rights, including China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. To single out Cuba seems hypocritical at best.

Furthermore, there is the argument that trade and more open relations with a nation can open citizens' eyes to a freer and better way of life, thereby increasing pressure on the regime to enact change. Cuba's isolation has not motivated the type of response the U.S. has desired for decades — namely, the overthrow of Castro's version of communism. Continuing the policy seems to embody the old adage that the truest definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

In recent decades, America has tightened the embargo on Cuba, even prohibiting American subsidiaries operating abroad from doing business in the country. This sends the wrong message to the world, given that many nations with far worse human rights violations than Cuba are not operating under the same constraints.

The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act requires Cuba to hold democratic elections before the executive branch can repeal the embargo. This opens the U.S. to charges of imperialism, as it effectively imposes American standards of what constitutes an acceptable form of government on another nation. Many nations that do not meet strict standards of representative democracy are still accepted by the world community. This is not to deny that Cuba needs to improve its human rights record, but rather to contextualize U.S. policy within the framework of its current and past relationships with other nations.

Should the U.S. Normalize Business Relations with Cuba?

Yes — or at minimum, the U.S. should pursue more normal relations with Cuba. First, the vast majority of the international community, including most U.S. allies, does not support the embargo. The U.S. is out of step with the world community, including nations that generally support its policies in other areas. The only people who have suffered as a result of the embargo are ordinary Cuban citizens who have no control over their government. The Castro brothers' grip on power has remained completely unaffected.

While economic pressure in the form of an embargo has in limited instances enacted political change — as in the case of South Africa — that effort had a specific purpose: to support an internal political movement for justice. There is no comparable pro-democracy Cuban movement that U.S. policy is designed to support, and the overall purpose of the current embargo appears unclear and unfocused.

The ban on American travel to Cuba is especially problematic. Only if Cubans see and experience Americans and the American way of life will they be likely to exert pressure upon their government to change in a positive direction. Ultimately, as was the case with the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc nations, change must come from within. Trade with Cuba could serve a similarly positive function. By experiencing the fruits of American capitalism in the form of higher-quality goods, Cubans may develop a more favorable view of the U.S. and generate further pressure on their government to lift economic restrictions on private enterprise.