Recognition that political engagement is a key method for influencing human rights development does not seem to have penetrated US Cuban policy. This may be due to a number of reasons. First, Cuba is of much lesser global significance than China, with a much smaller potential market for US products. Second, anti-Castro lobby groups in the US, particularly Florida, are a powerful driving force behind the hard line approach of US policy. Third, it has been suggested that the promotion of human rights is perhaps not the overriding objective of US policy towards Cuba (see below). Whatever the reason, the inconsistency of US foreign policy exacerbates antagonism between the two countries.

As noted earlier, the provision within Title II of the Helms-Burton Law, stating that the embargo placed against Cuba will not be removed until there are free and fair elections that do not include either Fidel or Raul Castro, indicates that while the US may indeed be driven by a desire to promote democratic transition in Cuba, there is a deeper motivation concerned with the removal of the Castro regime. The Bay of Pigs affair, and numerous CIA sabotage campaigns, such as the 1960s Operation Mongoose, provide an illustration of the lengths to which successive governments are prepared to go to oust Castro.

While the US is officially keen to promote the economic prosperity of Cuban people, it is only willing to do so following the removal of the Castro brothers from political control. This focus on the Castro regime has been demonstrated by the continuation of severe economic sanctions facing the island for over four decades, in spite of recently declining standards of living on the island. Indeed, during the regime’s most vulnerable period, following the withdrawal of Soviet subsidies in the early 1990s, US economic sanctions were actually tightened. This was justified purely in terms of speeding up the ‘inevitable’ collapse of the Cuban regime, both economically and politically. In this context, the US economic embargo against Cuba should perhaps be viewed as an incentive to the Cuban people to revolt against the regime rather than a committed attempt to improve the living standards of Cuban people.

Yet, in spite of these attempts to overthrow the regime, Castro has been in power for over four decades and remains a powerful symbol in the country. Part of this strength can actually be attributed to the embargo itself. Cuba’s long history of external rule and struggle for independence have left a legacy that continues to resonate in the country’s political situation. (See section on Cuba’s political development). That Castro still enjoys a sustainable level of support, in spite of the sacrifices that many Cubans have been forced to make since the end of the Cold War, should perhaps be viewed as a direct result of this experience. In this context, Cuban perceptions of US sanctions can be understood as a continuation of this struggle for independence. The ability of the small island to withstand the perceived ‘imperialist’ tendencies of the world’s leading power provokes a vision of "David versus Golliath" and inspires a degree of nationalistic pride within the Cuban people that has perhaps aided the survival of the current regime and may prove to be the defining factor in determining the country’s future direction.