The United States first placed an embargo on Cuba in 1960 and since then it has remained one of the longest standing trade freezes in the world. “El bloqueo” or “the blockade” was issued as an executive order by the Kennedy Administration in response to the the confiscation of American property under Fidel Castro’s communist regime. The embargo is a Cold War relic that has not achieved its intended goals. It’s time to reel in our big stick diplomacy and lift the embargo for good.
In some ways the embargo became a staple of American foreign policy, reaffirming the United States’ hardline not-in-my-backyard approach toward communism. In an attempt to change the course of Cuban government and improve its human rights record, the U.S. imposed economic, commercial and financial sanctions. However, five decades later, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent enforcing the embargo, Cuba against all odds remains a communist country.
For years, the Castro regime used the embargo as a scapegoat for its country’s shortcomings. But a lot has changed in Cuba since the 1960s. In 2008, Fidel Castro stepped down and abdicated power to his brother, Raul. Since then, the Cuban government has implemented many changes including 300 economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise and the lifting of property restrictions. Cuban citizens can now travel abroad without permission from their government. While reforms do not excuse Cuba of political oppression and human rights violations, these changes are a step in the right direction. Yet, in September, President Obama renewed the embargo against Cuba.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the U.S. conditions for lifting the embargo. They claim Cuba remains a one-party system and a gross violator of human rights. Embargo advocates stress the need to avoid backing down without concessions, as compromise is a sign of weakness. These arguments do not hold water. Throughout its diplomatic history, the U.S. has established diplomatic ties with one-party states and rarely needed “democracy” as a requirement to trade.
The overwhelming international consensus is that the embargo is counterproductive at best, vindictive at worst. This year marks the United Nations’ 23rd attempt to end the embargo since 1992. Only two member countries continue to support the embargo, the U.S. and its ally Israel. Pressure to end the embargo has further heightened in light of Cuba’s role in the Ebola crisis. While the U.S. and several other wealthy countries pledged money, only Cuba and a few nongovernmental organizations offered to deploy medical professionals to the front lines of the pandemic. Even potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton disagrees with the current American policy. In an interview at the Council on Foreign Relations Clinton said, “I think we should — we should advocate for the end of the embargo.”
The pace of reform in Cuba has been slow. The government is still authoritarian and willing to detain dissidents, but it has made strides in showing the world that it’s ready for a post-embargo era. The White House is hesitant, but the Obama Administration cannot squander the opportunity to act on one of the most consequential foreign policy dilemmas facing our country.