Embargo on Cuba - Isn't it about time we drop this?

[Jack the Bodiless]

It's ironic that the US has no qualms about trading with China, a communist state with nuclear ICBM's targeted on the US and a worse human rights record than Cuba.

This stupidity should cease. It has probably prolonged the Castro regime.

[Gatekeeper]

Orange, et al.:

It's time to dump the embargo and find a better way to introduce democracy to Cuba. Yeah, Castro is a tyrant and a dictator, but a decades-long embargo hasn't budged the SOB from power. It's time to try a new set of tactics.

Besides, I don't really like the fact that the Cuban American population in one of our 50 states has enough power to dominate the *national* agenda in this manner. If they wanna keep Florida at odds with Cuba, fine, but it aggravates me from time-to-time when I think how my country's foreign policy is dictated by this group.

Ah, crap. I guess that's the price of democracy. You don't always get what you want, and you can't order a coup to ensure you get what you want.

I love America. But not blindly so.

CYBERAmazon

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
It's ironic that the US has no qualms about trading with China, a communist state with nuclear ICBM's targeted on the US and a worse human rights record than Cuba.

Damn! Beat me to it.

The US position with regard to the embargo has nothing to do with ideology; the fawning over China indicates that. Beyond China, the US has gleefully supported much worse regimes than Castro's, and right in our own back yard (Guatamala, El Salvador, Chile). The embargo is rank hypocrisy as well as rank idiocy.

This stupidity should cease. It has probably prolonged the Castro regime.

Hell, it's probably actually been good for Cuba: shielded from US free market ideology and the malevolent interest of transnational corporations, Cuba has produced a society with the best health and education systems anywhere in Latin America. IIRC, their infant mortality rate is actually lower than the US's.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
If Lula Da Silva wins in Brasil, many countries in Latin America will turn to the left, that doesnt means socialist, it means a populist anti-globalization leader democratically elected very much like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (very similar to Peron and her wife Evita in Argentina and with a little bit of Castro ).
If Lula doesnt wins, the situation will remain the same, the usa and some big economical powers doesnt wants Lula to win, and some weird things had happened, one of the principal collaborators of lula was killed, and they are telling to the people to not vote Lula because if lula wins the country will enter into chaos.
Right now, our new president is a peronist, he seems to be very moderate but if Lula wins he will feel free to be as populist as he wants, so you will have argentina, brasil and venezuela with populist gobernments, and that is almost all latin america.

It's almost all of South America population wise perhaps, but saying that it's almost all of Latin America is an overstatement. Good luck with that populism by the way, I'm sure your economy will recover within 20 years, and under new leadership.

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
This is really complex and i could be talking much longer, but i am on vacations and i dont have enough money to pay for more time in the internet.

The thing is that the USA doesnt like the situation and Argentina is in a big economical crisis, so they promise us all the money in the world if we continue being alleys of the usa and if we make them some little favours like voting against cuba in the un and allowing them to build military bases in argentina.

What the hell are we going to do with military bases in Argentina? Check your source on this information, it sounds unlikely in the extreme. We have enough trouble in the rest of the world without expanding our military involvement into southern South America.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

The US position with regard to the embargo has nothing to do with ideology; the fawning over China indicates that. Beyond China, the US has gleefully supported much worse regimes than Castro's, and right in our own back yard (Guatamala, El Salvador, Chile). The embargo is rank hypocrisy as well as rank idiocy.

I'm no fan of the embargo either, but I don't think the U.S. 'gleefully' supported those regimes. It was always an embarassment. I would rather live in Chile than Cuba anyday. At least Pinochet knew when it was time to leave, and he didn't destroy his country to save his regime. The same can't be said for Castro, who will never let go.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Hell, it's probably actually been good for Cuba: shielded from US free market ideology and the malevolent interest of transnational corporations, Cuba has produced a society with the best health and education systems anywhere in Latin America. IIRC, their infant mortality rate is actually lower than the US's.

I hear this a lot, but what the hell has Cuba done? They don't produce much more than sugar, cigars, athletes and prostitutes. With all of that education where are the great artists and thinkers? While the regime has produced some statistics, the cultural reality is that the vibrant soul of Cuba lives in a prison. Would you want to live in a country where there is a block captain to keep an eye out for political dissent on every block?

Cuba probably isn't as bad as our propoganda has made it out to be, but let's not get carried away.

[Shai-Hulud]

If trading between US and Cuba successes to introduce capitalism into Cuba - democracy will soon follow. I think it's the best US can do to bring democracy into Cuba. Trade embargo hasn't accomplished anything and there seems to be no real reasons to continue it. Cuba is a small country and trade with USA would mean a lot to its economy, that's why capitalization could overthrow dictatorian regime. One could say it's even working in China, "market socialism", and if it turns into more capitalist system...there goes dictatorship.

[Rogan Josh]

Nah - keep the blockade!

We Euros can enjoy beauiful holidays on Cuba at a fraction of the price of other Caribean resorts since there is no demand from the US. If the US lifts the embargo, Cuba will be spoiled by all the McDonalds and Starbucks that go up.

Seriously though, to MtG's post: (see? - we can agree on some things... )

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sikander
I'm no fan of the embargo either, but I don't think the U.S. 'gleefully' supported those regimes. It was always an embarassment. I would rather live in Chile than Cuba anyday. At least Pinochet knew when it was time to leave, and he didn't destroy his country to save his regime. The same can't be said for Castro, who will never let go.

Always an embarrassment? Hardly. Remeber, we actually put both Pinochet and Armas in power (overthrowing democratic governments in the process -- and we might as well add Somoza to this list), and then touted them as model leaders.

I hear this a lot, but what the hell has Cuba done? They don't produce much more than sugar, cigars, athletes and prostitutes. With all of that education where are the great artists and thinkers? While the regime has produced some statistics, the cultural reality is that the vibrant soul of Cuba lives in a prison. Would you want to live in a country where there is a block captain to keep an eye out for political dissent on every block?

Cuba probably isn't as bad as our propoganda has made it out to be, but let's not get carried away.

I'm not begging to live there, either, but this needs to be comparative. Cuba has done materially very well by its citizens when compared to other caribbean islands. The political repression is reprehensible, but I'd still rather raise my child there than in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or even Jamaica (assuming I was a native of each place, rather than a privileged white American). And given how delightful free-market capitalism has been for countries like Brazil and Argentina (to say nothing of Colombia, who's Medellin cartel offers capitalism taken to its logical extreme), you can hardly blame them for clinging to socialism.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Always an embarrassment? Hardly. Remeber, we actually put both Pinochet and Armas in power (overthrowing democratic governments in the process -- and we might as well add Somoza to this list), and then touted them as model leaders.

I think you are overstating your case here. Firstly, giving the thumbs up to Pinochet is not the same thing as putting him in power. Secondly, I don't ever remember anyone (U.S. officials) holding up any of these guys as model leaders, certainly not to a domestic audience. They were always viewed with varying levels of disdain publicly in my lifetime, and no U.S. President looked forward to a photo op with them.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

I'm not begging to live there, either, but this needs to be comparative. Cuba has done materially very well by its citizens when compared to other caribbean islands. The political repression is reprehensible, but I'd still rather raise my child there than in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or even Jamaica (assuming I was a native of each place, rather than a privileged white American). And given how delightful free-market capitalism has been for countries like Brazil and Argentina (to say nothing of Colombia, who's Medellin cartel offers capitalism taken to its logical extreme), you can hardly blame them for clinging to socialism.

Well, Cuba started out a lot wealthier than Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and has a lot more to work with resource wise. I'm not as well-versed on the history of Jamaica, but it sounds pretty crime ridden.

Brazil and Argentina can blame their more socialist / populist governments for some of their woes, though in the big picture even with the current troubles they haven't done that badly by Latin American standards, and by African standards they are veritable miracles of productivity. Columbia could use another dictator (well perhaps strongman is a better term) to get control of the country and institute some order. Just as you believe (and I am certainly open to the idea) that not all states are prepared to successfully operate a free market economy, I believe that even fewer states are prepared to successfully institute democracy. The best that can be hoped for is that the level of force used to maintain order is is minimal, and that the country makes strides in law and education so that it can move to gentler forms of government as soon as possible. This is one of the reasons that Cuba is a disappointment like Chile before it. As a well educated country it should be in the vanguard of the democratization that has been occurring in Latin America for the last two decades. Perhaps once the Castro brothers die their cult of personality will wither and leave the floor open for reforms.

[Shi Huangdi]

"It's well known, even beyond contradiction, that Fulgencio Bautista would sell any national resource or make any deal, so long as he and his designees received the appropriate kickbacks. "

If we were to use this as an excuse for tolerating nationalizaiton of US property, I wonder how much more of our property would suddenly be siezed by countries who claimed they took it illegaly?

In any case, do you want our businesses to be able to deal with non-democratic countries or not? Do you want the US government to try to supervise every deal that is mase in those cases?

"Bribery is a violation of US law, and the US takes the position that it's citizens, including corporations, are subject to US law regardless of their location."

So I take it our corporations are paying their overseas workers the US legal minimum wage?

"So what if Castro's a dictator and a thug? So was Papa Doc Duvalier, Anastasio Somoza, Alfredo Stroessner, and a host of other Latinamerican leaders the US had never had any qualms dealing with."

Well, if we are dealing with dictators, we are doing so out of self-interest. Working with pro-US dictators has been in US interests in the past. Working with Fidel Castro, a communist, is not in US self interest. (Didn't you side with me in a thread about trading with China in opposing additional free trade in that it would help a US rival) As has been mentioned, he has been expansionist. Furthermore, not that this is a very good reason, but the richer Cuba becomes, the stronger of an example it might be for other Latin American nations.

"Better than the US?"

Oh well, if he dismiss to ignore plainly stated facts if they don't fit his ideology, that's his business.

"For starters, Cuba does not bomb countries halfway around the globe."

That's right, they don't go around liberating people from opressive regimes such as the Taliban. I am sure they would be more assertive if they had the military power.

"Even when Castro dies, the political education of Cubans will keep them tied to socialism."

That and brutal repression of all dissent.

"
In fact, the whole Latin America is turning socialist and there's nothing you can do, apart from planting a new round of dictatorships."

Uh huh. Hey MtG, remember his last post about Mexican election and the Zapatistas(sp?)? That big offensive never really happened, did it axi?

"If trading between US and Cuba successes to introduce capitalism into Cuba - democracy will soon follow."

Why are you so sure? European and Canadian coroporations have been there for a long time already I don't see any democracy there yet?

[Bereta_Eder]

it's abvious we don't agree.

however I have a question: is the US the only country to have this truely devastating embargo on the cuban people?

Also does the EU has it too or not?

anyone knows?

[Bereta_Eder]

Sikander,

about countries not being able to sustain democracy, this largely depends.

for example Latin American people would live much better if they had socialism.

to riot in order to establish what the people want is not to overthrow democracy. it's what democracy is all about.
and if they riot is because there was not democracy to begin with.


every people uprising is justified by default.

[Bereta_Eder]

ok. EU does not have a trade embargo with Cuba.
it's a bit old but valid

But trade with individual European countries remains strong, particularly as the US embargo on Cuba leaves the market free from American rivals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1689000/1689710.stm

[Shai-Hulud]

The best that can be hoped for is that the level of force used to maintain order is is minimal, and that the country makes strides in law and education so that it can move to gentler forms of government as soon as possible

So, you hope these strongmen are going to make things right? Let's oppress a little bit to get things going and then step down to make country democratic? This might have worked in ancient Greece, or Rome, but it certainly isn't working nowadays. Although I agree that, even for the people, dictatorship is often better than anarchy, it's still no solution.

but the richer Cuba becomes, the stronger of an example it might be for other Latin American nations.

That's right. Only way to get really rich is to get capitalist, works for both individuals and nations . I haven't really seen rich socialist countries so far.

Why are you so sure? European and Canadian coroporations have been there for a long time already I don't see any democracy there yet?

True. It's not that simple. But I believe that free trade will eventually introduce capitalism into any country. Of course it's not enough that transnational corporations profit from Cuba. The society itself must transform into more capitalist, this is a trap we can lure dictators into, capitalization. China is doing it, even though it's still a strong dictatorship. Capitalism, when established, will bring democracy. It's the prerequisite of democracy.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Why do people think that you can just hand a country "capitalism" (by which, these days, we means free tade capitalism) and everything will get better? Even the western nations at the top of the food chain went through centuries of merchantilism before opening thei trade -- and in those centuries developed the societies, values, and institutions that made capitalism's nastier components (and they are quite nasty) bearable. By contrast, countries that just have capitalism thrust upon them don't just magically turn into the West; Latin America as a whole is exhibit A, but we might also look to Eastern Europe, especially Romania and the Ukraine. Cuba is a politically wretched place, but its poor are materially better off than the poor of most Latin capitalist nations; we should acknowledge that and think about what it means, not ignore it or blindly condemn it on ideological grounds. A future Cuba policy which would make Cuba's poor poorer, less healthy, less well-educated, or more subject to crime is a policy we should not be advocating, because it is literally inhumane -- and imposing capitalism on a society unprepared for it is just such a policy.