Landmark turnover could alter U.S.-Cuban politics

Less than 100 miles away from the sunny southern tip of Florida lays a piece of land… Less than 100 miles away from the sunny southern tip of Florida lays a piece of land considered so dangerous, the leaders of our nation have banned us from setting foot on it. Maybe you’ve been looking forward to some salsa dancing, or engaging with the local baseball fanatics. Either way, if you’ve been considering a visit to Cuba for your next vacation, think again – the U.S. embargo against Cuba is still in full effect.

More than 45 years have passed since the embargo was first announced in 1962. And – no surprise – the world’s political stage has changed drastically since then. With former Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s recent resignation came a few positive signs – Castro’s brother and successor Raul Castro recently signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which allows workers to create and join trade unions, and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes rights for self-determination and freedom of religion. Fidel Castro had long opposed these measures. And with the 2008 U.S. presidential election just around the corner, the potential for change is as good as it’s been since Jimmy Carter was in office. With Cuba’s progression, other countries should be looking toward the future with it – namely, the United States. Originally, the embargo was put in place as a defense measure to cut off communism’s connection to the West. But the Soviet Union’s collapse in the early ’90s effectively neutered the threat of communism spreading throughout the Western hemisphere. With Cuba’s biggest ally unable to provide annual subsidies, the little island nation has been cut out of billions of dollars and more or less left to its own devices. Because of its own domestic issues – say, feeding its 11 million residents – Cuba has little in the way of an armed force. In 1998, the U.S. Defense Department issued a report on Cuba’s military, calling it “residual” and only for “defensive purposes.” Economically, both countries would have a lot to gain from lifting the embargo. In 2000, a slight opening was made in the way of trade, allowing business with Cuba only in the form of cash sales of humanitarian and agricultural products via the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act. Since then, more than $1.6 billion worth of goods have been exported to Cuba, with farmers in Arkansas, Iowa, California and Texas standing to make the vast majority of that profit. Because Cuba only produces about a third of its own food consumption, that leaves open a huge market for Americans willing to do business with the country. Not to mention the benefit it would bring to Cubans in need of lower cost food sources. According to studies by Medical Students for Cuba, a non-profit group of medical students from the University of Michigan, in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, malnourishment became a major issue. This was particularly a problem for expectant mothers. The group’s studies showed a trend toward declining birth weights and caloric intake for both mothers and newborn infants between 1989 and 1993. For all of these issues, it’s not just a small minority of American agricultural businessmen who want to do away with the embargo. Around the world, opposition to the ban has been overwhelming since the fall of the Soviet Union. Since 1992, a United Nations General Assembly vote has been taken annually on whether it should be necessary that the United States lift its blockade on Cuba.

The only two nations that have consistently voted against lifting the blockade have been the United States and Israel. In 2002, for instance, 173 out of 176 nations voted for lifting the ban. In addition to the United States and Israel, only the Marshall Islands (whose defense is provided for by the United States) voted against lifting the blockade. Still, some remain hesitant that fully opening trade will solve any of the core issues between the United States and Cuba. Carlos Gutierrez, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, believes Cuba needs to take the first steps towards lifting the embargo by embracing democratic changes. “Years of foreign investment have not improved the lives of average Cubans, only those in power,” he said in a speech delivered to the Council of Americas last week. But most hold onto the belief that a completely open market with Cuba is inevitable, and we are only deferring profit and business relationships by keeping things as they are.

By putting our money in the hands of Cuban merchants through tourism and trade, some argue we will in turn be spurring growth in Cuba’s private sector, which would be free-market democracy’s best possible advertisement to the Cuban people. Additionally, much of that money would see its way back into U.S. hands if trading were to be opened up. There are, after all, 11 million Cubans who need to eat every day.

E-mail Brandon at bkp3@pitt.edu.