What to do with a problem like Cuba
By AcademicElephant Posted in Contra Tyrannum — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One of the more depressing stories of last week was the election of Cuba to the new and unimproved United Nations Human Rights Council. Undeterred by Cuba's abysmal record on human rights, not to mention very recent and highly public transgressions, the United Nations bestowed this honor on Fidel Castro's island paradise, I suppose in the not entirely implausible hope that even Castro might be able to teach the UN a thing or two about human rights .
This distateful little episode brought back to the fore for me the ongoing conundrum that is Cuba. Every time I think of it, it brings me up short that there is a communist dictatorship 90 miles from our shores whose hostility has brought us closer to nuclear war than any other country on the planet. Oh relax, you might say. He might not be the nicest guy in the world, but Fidel is really a paper tiger now. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 he has been on a sort of dictatorial life-support as the economic and military subsidies from his former patron dried up.
In 1996 I might have agreed with you. Castro was indeed then in something of a pickle, especially when the Burton-Helms Bill was passed by Congress. But President Clinton refused to fully enact the bill, and through the late 1990s trade restrictions were slowly relaxed. Dollars began to flow into the cash-strapped island.
And then, in 1998, Castro caught a really lucky break. His younger socialist comrade-in-arms, Hugo Chavez, came to power in Venezuela. Chavez quickly strengthened ties between Caracas and Havana and started to fill the vacuum left by the defunct Soviet Union. After all, the relationship between Cuba and the USSR had blossomed in the early 1960s when Nikita Khrushchev responded to the embargo enacted by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy by buying Cuban sugar at an inflated rate while selling Cuba cut-rate oil. These subsidies propped up the economy Castro had eviscerated with his socialist "reforms," and in grateful response, he allowed the USSR to use Cuba as a military outpost on the US's doorstep, most notably in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Chavez took a page from Khruschev's book and began an aggressive program of controlled and subsidized socio-economic exchange with Cuba centered on, once again, cheap oil for Castro. Chavez may play the "little brother" to the venerable old tyrant for the cameras, but make no mistake. The Venezuelan "president" is in control of this relationship as his assistance makes it possible for Cuba to continue to function in the face of Castro's wretchedly exploitive economic policies and the now more vigorously enforced embargo under George W. Bush. Is it too much of a leap to surmise that Chavez will expect in return for his largesse the same favors from Castro that were once granted to Khruschev?
Again, the nay-sayers might point out that neither Venezuela nor Cuba are nuclear powers, so how much of a threat can they be, either individually or in tandem?
In response, and particularly in light of the developments early this week, I would argue that such a state of affairs is unfortunately temporary. Mr. Chavez has declared his nuclear ambitions, and his fastest route to such an arsenal is to join forces with the Iranians. Mr. Chavez ominously let it be known yesterday that he is considering selling his American-made F-16 fighter jets to Iran. The aging and hard-to-maintain F-16s are of course the least of our worries as the not-so-subtle message here is that Venezuela and Iran are establishing a military relationship that is designed to thwart and taunt the US. And what would Chavez do with his new-found technology? How about once again copying Khruschev and parking nuclear missiles in Cuba, as Castro would no-doubt allow him to do?
That tiger doesn't look quite so paper-y now, does he?
This leaves us with the question of how we are going to solve this problem. Certainly, the embargo, which was supposed to undermine Castro economically in short order, has not achieved that goal. He's still there and still very capable of making major trouble for the US. So should the embargo be lifted in the hopes that greater exposure to the US--both socially and economically--will succeed in toppling Castro?
My personal opinion is no. To end the embargo now as Castro is emerging as as great a threat as ever would be interpreted as a great victory for him and a humiliation for the United States that would be gleefully trumpted around the world. I also have serious reservations about many who oppose the embargo. Ted Kennedy. Jimmy Carter. Noam Chomsky. The United Nations. Those entities have certainly been good negative indicators for me in the past. Also, I fear that our lifting trade restrictions would not lead Castro to do the same. He would be, like his pal Chavez, all too eager to reap the benefits of trade with the US while placing the most stringent restrictions on the activities of US companies in Cuba. It seems all too likely that the opening of trade would be one-way street, with Fidel, who is not inept at lining his pockets with the GDP of Cuba, reaping the profits while continuing to brew up mischief with Chavez. But in the hopes of moving towards some more coherent policy on this issue, I would like to invite opinions on both side of the debate. Go to in in the comments. We can't spend too much time on this issue, because in my opinion we ignore the tiger on our doorstep at our peril.
« "CIBD" — Comments (7) | Filling the vacancy in the Axis of Evil? — Comments (9) »
What to do with a problem like Cuba 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I would like to think you're right, Jdub, but I continue to worry that a nuclear Chavez changes the game completely. However, your point about oil drilling is well taken, and I think not unrelated if for no other reason than it shows Castro's willingness to creep outside his borders.
being underestimated for over 45 years.
He has in fact depended on it.
I think the US has done a good job letting the world know where our comfort zone is.
further, as long as the UN exists in it's present state, i think the world knows that when it comes to right and wrong, we simply don't care...we'll do what's right.
Who really cares what Castro, Dinnerjacket, or Chavez think as long as we are committed to act, if we must...
The prospect of Iranian subs skulking around the Caribbean with friendly ports in Cuba and Venezuela is unsettling. Though Iran's subs are diesel/electric, they are not grandpa's U-boats. Keep the embargo at least until Castro dies.
Feel free to use me as a contraindicator the way you do Kennedy and Carter, but my personal take is that I simply cannot comprehend why the embargo has lasted this long. Free trade spurs prosperity and innovation, and the inevitable flow of our culture across Cuba's borders would do far more to influence its people than shutting the door in their face.
China is a good argument for this approach. Its human rights record is simply appalling, and it was once considered every bit a part of the communist menace as the Soviet Union. Even today it is one of the few countries in the world that could openly threaten us as a superpower, and there are justifiable concerns about the possibility of it doing so in the future.
Rather than shunning China and its totalitarian government, as some have advocated, we have long pursued a policy of engagement and trade--and it has paid off. I wouldn't dream of calling China an exemplar of personal freedom, but it is certainly a far better place than it was. Its economy is essentially capitalist in all but name, and the more closely that economy is tied to ours, the more painful it would be for China to be in conflict with us, providing them with an incentive for peaceful relations.
The embargo against Cuba made sense at one time. That time has long since come and gone.
...wants to be the one who admits defeat. Down the line, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, moderate, doesn't matter: they all sat down on the first day on the job, looked at Cuba gathering dust in the In Box, said some variant of "the SOB can't live forever" and went on to the next item on the list.
Hell of a thing, but that's apparently how it goes.
Are also scarier in some respects... they can sit completely silent for as long as they have power and air, since they don't have a nuclear core that needs to be continuously cooled. I believe a good diesel boat is much more of a threat than a bad nuclear boat.
are scary quiet; enough so that they are a threat to our attack subs.
After Castro is gone. Would China be the same place it is today if Mao was still running the show? I don't think so. China has almost entirely abandoned communism for plain old totalitarianism. Would we have trade with China? I doubt it.
Personally, I think it could be done in a way that does not look like a defeat to anyone who isn't already determined to view it that way. Castro, of course, will crow about staring down the mighty United States--and approximately four people will take him seriously, two from his fan club and two right-wing pundits who'll use it as an example of why we should've kept the embargo.
To the rest of us, the President could say something like, "We have long had our differences with [China, etc], and pursued a policy of engagement and open trade as a means towards encouraging freedom. That investment has paid off, and it is long since time for us to engage others in the same way by lifting one of the last relics of the Cold War--the trade embargo against Cuba."
Sure, the die-hards will still call it appeasement/defeat/etc. But the right president and the right message could make it a decision made from strength and wisdom, not weakness.
with doing away with the embargo, I don't think we should have done it in the first place. But the real challenge is how does a great nation stand down from this at this late date. And make no mistake, standing down can, and will, have enormous geopolitical implications among both our enemies and our erstwhile friends. Don't think it is as easy or straighforward as it sounds, there are far, far bigger fish to deal with than a few right wing pundits.
The above in regards to whether we would be trading with China if Mao were not gone. That's a hypothetical I can't answer. I will argue that one of the points you raise--that China has almost completely abandoned communism--is in no small part because of our trade policy. It is not unreasonable to suspect that open trade would have a similar effect on Cuba.
I take your point about Castro, but I can think of few surer ways to accelerate his departure than to "infect" Cuba with American products and culture. The embargo sure isn't doing it.
Is the true believer is gone. All of these "revolutions" led to some extremely strong dictator type figure coming to power. You cannot deal with these people. You can only deal with their successors. I think we would've had zero chance of success dealing with Mao, Stalin, or Castro. Chavez is the newest member on that list. He isn't a radical leftist America-hater because of lack of trade. And I'm sure he will continue to be all that until he dies.
...if it's that easy, why hasn't any sitting President just bit the bullet and gotten it over with?
because geopolitically it isn't "that easy." :-)
But the problem I still see is that it wouldn't be "open" trade. It would be open trade on our side and Castro's trade on other sides. Furthermore, I don't see him raising any other restrictions. Would he allow for open internet access? For a free press? And if not, how would the infection occur just because the US starts importing Cuban sugar again.
It's more than Florida Florida Florida--although that's certainly a big part of it--it's the wretched UN declaring victory and making our lives even more miserable than ever.
Now an embargo on Turtle Bay--that's something I can get behind. With the US mission to the UN structured more like the US mission to Havana.
has something to do with it certainly, but I was not thinking of that as a serious "geopolitical" matter.
Geopolitically it is difficult for a great nation to change direction. Our enemies would have a field day with the Great Satan having been beaten by little Cuba. And don't for a minute thing that images like that do not have an impact.
Trade doesn't do squat if one has no freedom domesticly. Just ask any Falun Gong member in China what WTO membership has meant for them.
When that senile criminal Fidel finally kicks the bucket.
The trade embargo is a joke, it hasn't done diddly.
A quick look through recent history shows that you have far more influence on nations you trade with.
The members of Falun Gong would be in far worse shape if there was no big US trade. How long do you think it would have taken Mao to kill them all?
But the current regime is wary of how they will appear to us if they crack down too much.
What does Mao have to do with free trade. He was long dead before Deng and Jiang China opened up to trade.
Under Mao, there was no need to bother about the opinions of the western nations.
And Mao wouldn't have opened up the country to trade.
You've reversed cause and effect here.
Our recognition of China was one of the most cynical actions ever taken by the United States. It has done little for the people of China and its effect on the original target, the Soviet Union, has yet to be determined. Now a long time ally and friend, Taiwan, just hopes we won't be cynical enough to abandon them totally.
At least opening up to China had some cynical value in an attempt to undermine the Soviet empire. Opening up trade with Cuba does nothing to help us with anyone. Castro and Chavez aren't going to become any less antiAmerican. The money will go to the Cuban government, military and secret police. Killing the embargo is an idea that benifits only Castro. It would provide better steel to be forged into better bars for the windows of Castro's jails. And more misery and oppression for those Cubans courageous enough to dissent.
will be a threat to the US?.. I think our actions in the 60's, coupled with our recent ventures, indicate to the world that there is no screwing around when it comes to those 90 miles.
I'm more po'd about potential Cuban drilling off FLA.