http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2014/12/18/president-obama-right-to-call-for-trade-with-cuba-half-century-of-failed-embargo-is-enough/
2/18/2014 _at_ 5:49AM 780 views
President Obama Right To Call For Trade With Cuba: Half Century Of
Failed Embargo Is Enough
Comment Now
Follow Comments
President Barack Obama used negotiations over bringing home a couple
of imprisoned Americans as an opportunity to refashion the entire
U.S.-Cuba relationship. He’s aiming to reopen the embassy, relax trade
and travel restrictions, and improve communication systems.
Of course, sustained caterwauling began immediately from the usual
suspects, hardline Cuban-Americans, Republican neocons and uber-hawks,
and obsessive Obama-haters. The president wasn’t just aiding the
Castros. He was hurting America, they claimed.
For instance, potential 2016 presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio
of Florida declared: “Appeasing the Castro brothers will only cause
other tyrants from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang to see that they can
take advantage of President Obama’s naiveté during his final two years
in office. As a result, America will be less safe as a result.”
It’s an astoundingly silly claim. If Sen. Rubio hasn’t noticed,
America has engaged in years of on-and-off discussions with North
Korea’s Kim dynasty stretching back to the Clinton administration.
Under President Obama Washington has been negotiating with Iran’s
government for months: most people recognize that a diplomatic
settlement, no matter how difficult to achieve, would be better than
war. And it’s hard to fathom exactly how the national wreck known as
Venezuela could hurt the U.S.
Yet Rubio and others charge the administration with appeasement and
even surrender.All because the president is proposing to treat Cuba
like the U.S., under Republican as well as Democratic administrations,
treats China, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and a
host of other repressive states. President Obama suggests that
government officials talk to one another. And that peoples visit and
trade with one another. Nothing more.
Republicans once attempted to present themselves as the Daddy Party,
the serious folks who got things done and accepted the world as it
was, rather than treated it as they wished it to be. They set
priorities and made tough choices. They adapted their approach as
circumstances warranted. And they adopted policies which actually
achieved what the stated objectives.
Well, no longer, if ever. And certainly not in Cuba today.
More than a half century ago Fidel Castro took power in Havana. In the
midst of the Cold War the Kennedy administration understandably feared
that Cuba would serve as an advanced base for the Soviet Union, as
evidenced by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Moreover, Soviet aid could both
sustain Havana and enable it to spread revolution elsewhere in the
region. Having tried and failed to overthrow the regime militarily,
Washington saw an economic embargo as the next best option.
But that didn’t work either. Even after the Soviet Union collapsed and
Moscow ended subsidies for Cuba, sanctions achieved nothing. The
Communist system tottered along, with 1950s U.S. cars held together
with wire and tape, buildings looking like they were last painted
during the Jurassic Period, and food in short supply. But where
Americans would not trod others cheerfully brought their money. When I
visited Havana (legally) a decade ago, my journalism group stayed at a
Dutch hotel. Dollar stores for those with access to “hard” currency
were filled with foreign goods and Fidel Castro reluctantly allowed
private business—it was easy to find restaurants with good food if not
fine furnishings. And individual Cubans were eager to talk, and
especially to cadge a few bucks off foreign visitors.
Today the system continues to stagger along. Fidel alive but in
retirement. Raul in charge, but nearing the end of his rule. Low-key
political purges mixed with limited economic reform. Everyone assumes
the system cannot last much longer, but two decades ago people were
saying the same thing when the U.S.S.R. left Cuba. The only certainty
is that economic sanctions have failed.
Failed to bring down the regime. Failed to spark a second revolution.
Failed to liberalize the system. Failed to free any political
prisoners. Failed to initiate open elections. Failed to shift the
Castros’ allegiance from Moscow, Caracas, and other anti-American
regimes. Failed to win the return of nationalized assets. Failed to
prevent foreign investment. Failed to transform the economy. Failed to
isolate Cuba. Failed to achieve much of anything useful, at least.
After more than 50 years.
But that should surprise no one, least of all free market
conservatives. Sanctions are most likely to work if they are universal
and narrowly focused. For instance, a detailed study by the Institute
for International Economics of 120 cases figured about a one-third
success rate for economic sanctions. However, even that overstated
their efficacy. They did best with limited objectives, such as
destabilization and disruption (economic consequences of economic
action) or “modest” policy change (small political concessions due to
economic action).
For instance, the U.N.-approved ban on oil sales by Iraq was vastly
more effective than America’s commercial restrictions on Cuba, yet
even the former was hard to enforce. Moreover, limits on Iraqi oil
sales were designed to cut Baghdad’s revenue, not end Saddam Hussein’s
rule. Voluntary regime change is unknown, with governments more likely
to treat sanctions as war and strike out if they have the means to do
so, such as Japan in 1941.
The latter point is critical. A Government Accountability Office
review noted that “sanctions are more effective in achieving such
modest goals as upholding international norms and deterring future
objectionable actions” than in forcing major changes, such as
committing political suicide. Get most everyone in the world to insist
that Havana behave a certain way in a specific circumstance on a
discretionary issue, it might agree. Unilaterally demand that it hold
free elections, release political prisoners, return property, allow an
opposition press, okay foreign ownership, and permit public
demonstrations? Get real. For the regime, sanctions obviously are the
lesser evil.
It’s the same elsewhere. U.S. and European commercial restrictions, in
conjunction with the sharp drop in oil prices, are imposing real harm
on the Russian economy and its people, but the Putin government isn’t
likely to retreat from policies in Ukraine which it views as vital.
The North Korean regime has withstood years of Washington-led
impositions, maintaining political repression and developing nuclear
weapons, both considered to be foundations for its system of
monarchical communism. International sanctions have helped push Iran
to negotiate over its nuclear program, but diplomacy has gotten this
far, and still may fail, only because the West is united and not
demanding political surrender.
Yet for a half century Washington has been insisting that the Castros
dismantle their Communist dictatorship. A great goal and the right
choice for the Cuban people. But until Havana’s Gorbachev appears, it
ain’t going to happen, whatever sanctions the U.S. imposes.
The embargo also is advanced as moral recompense, punishing dictators
and thieves, the Communist revolutionaries who oppressed the Cuban
people and stole their property, or at least that of many people who
fled to Florida. Of course, the same could be said of most every other
government arising from revolution, insurrection, coup, putsch, and
sometimes even election. Democratic governments are known sometimes to
seize property without adequate compensation. (Even the U.S.
authorities have been known to do so!) Why single out Cuba, other than
the politics of Florida?
Moreover, if Raul Castro & Co. is being punished, those in charge
don’t seem to notice. General embargoes hurt average folks far more
than elites, who are most able to manipulate the system. This led to
the famous question about what justified the death of a half million
Iraqi babies put to then-U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright (who
callously responded: “We think the price is worth it”). In 1998 I met
Zoran Djindjic, head of the Democratic Party and opponent of
Yugoslavian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Djindjic, later assassinated
as prime minister, criticized Western sanctions, which led “to
centralization of the management of the economy.” The politically
well-connected took advantage of the restrictions while his followers
couldn’t even afford gasoline to drive to a rally, he explained.
The embargo also has provided the regime with a wonderful excuse for
its failings. Even though plenty of investment funds and trade
opportunities are available with the rest of the world, the Castros
could always point to Yanqui Imperialism as the cause of the Cuban
people’s travails. Never mind collectivist economic policies which
have failed everywhere else in the world. Blame the embargo! It’s why
many Cuban dissidents were not much enthused with sanctions. Some
regime opponents, such as Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who I met on my
trip a decade ago, criticized U.S. policy.
Perhaps the worst consequence of the embargo, however, was helping to
turn a murderous windbag into a towering international figure. Fidel
Castro never much mattered because Cuba never much mattered. With good
government and liberal economics the island would become a prosperous
vacation haven. But it’s hard to imagine what a hostile Cuba could
achieve on its own. Visualize Cuban hordes conquering the Caribbean,
let alone the world. Nah!
Castro’s relationship with the Soviet Union made him dangerous, but
that was resolved by the settlement to the Cuban Missile Crisis. After
that his government intervened to varying degrees elsewhere, such as
in Africa, but Havana’s activities had minimal effect and were little
different than those conducted by Moscow. He became a symbol of
resistance to America only because Washington focused attention on
him. Ignoring him and flooding his island with tourists and
businessmen would have denied him his global podium and claim of
victimhood.
Encouraging travel and trade would promote regime change better than
all the money spent on Radio Marti. There’s no need to oversell the
political impact of commerce. Political tyranny is difficult to
overthrow, even when everyone knows the system is a grotesque fraud
and failure. But it’s hard to name a dictatorship anywhere ended by
isolation. And if the latter policy hasn’t worked for 50 years in
Cuba, it’s time to try something else.
Perhaps most disappointing is how fevered embargo advocates never let
the facts get in the way of their arguments. Impose an embargo on
Communist Cuba when it appears to pose a security threat and other
countries are willing to back your approach. But don’t steadily
ratchet up restrictions as everyone else shifts to engagement. And
admit after a half century that sanctions have failed to achieve any
of your objectives.
Then back away gracefully. Don’t act as if your policy would work if
just given a little more time—say another 50 years or so. And don’t
shout expletives at your opponents, as if letting people trade and
travel was an unheard of concession never before imagined in the
world.
There are plenty of good reasons to criticize President Obama and his
cast of liberal but incompetent hawks. However, he’s got Cuba policy
right, in contrast to Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and most of the cast of
GOP presidential wannabes. It long ago was evident that the embargo
had failed and deserved to be repealed. (And that America’s embassy
should be reopened, as the president also has proposed.) If
conservative Republicans believe in recognizing reality and getting
results, as they claim, they should back trade and engagement with
Cuba.
Received on Sat Dec 20 2014 - 13:37:42 EST