The US Embargo on Cuba
Alice Coulter
von Alice Coulter
Inhalt:
- The US Embargo on Cuba
- Objectives of US Policy Towards Cuba
- Return of properties belonging to US citizens and firms
- Severance of the Soviet-Cuban alliance
- Promotion of Human Rights
- Promotion of democracy and economic prosperity
- Conclusions
- Bibliography
The US Embargo on Cuba
The US embargo on Cuba was implemented in reaction to political events in Cuba in the late 1950s.[1] Since this time, the embargo has faced a barrage of criticism from a range of political perspectives, both domestically and abroad. While there are several points of contention relating to the embargo, the fundamental criticism appears to be that the policy simply does not achieve its stated objectives. But what are these objectives? Is the policy really unsuccessful? And if so, why has it dominated US-Cuba relations for over four decades?
To answer these questions it will be necessary to explore the relationship between Cuba and the US since the Cuban revolution in 1959, and assess the varying objectives of both sides within the wider context of shifting patterns of international relations. It will also be necessary to highlight some of the major points of critique of the embargo.
Objectives of US Policy Towards Cuba
During four decades of economic sanctions, the objectives of US policy towards Cuba have shifted in significance, largely in accordance with changing dynamics of the countries’ bilateral relationship and international developments.[2] Despite official statements to the contrary, the major political objectives of US policy towards Cuba have been consistently recognisable as including: the fall of the Castro regime; the reversal of key domestic Cuban policies; the return of properties belonging to US citizens and firms; and, the severance of the Soviet-Cuban alliance.[3]
Initially, the establishment of the embargo in October 1960 was a direct response to the revolutionary regime’s expropriation of US properties and its shift towards communism. Diplomatic ties were formally severed in January 1961. The official objective of the US response at this time was to signify condemnation of the confiscation of US capital, through diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions.
As Cuba became more allied with the Soviet Union, a secondary objective, of increasing the cost to the USSR of continuing the alliance, also gained prominence.[4] In 1962, following the Bay of Pigs affair, and Castro’s declared commitment to Marxist-Leninist ideals, the US government extended sanctions by banning all Cuban imports and the re-export of US products to Cuba from other countries, and announced an end to aid for countries that provide assistance to Cuba.
In this time of heightened Cold War tensions - 1962 is also the date of the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which Kennedy and Khrushchev narrowly averted a major nuclear conflict - the Kennedy administration prohibited travel to Cuba and made financial and commercial transactions with Cuba illegal for US citizens. The 1960s can therefore be characterised as a period of increased bilateral tension, and a corresponding tightening of economic sanctions against Cuba.
During the 1970s this approach was softened as extraterritorial dimensions of the embargo were dropped and some attempts were made to find accommodation between Cuba and the US. Success was limited by US opposition to Cuban intervention in a number of international revolutionary movements, including those in Angola, Syria, Puerto Rico and Ethiopia. During this decade, sanctions signified US objections to Cuba’s activities and policies in the international arena, with relatively little mention of the country’s internal characteristics.[5]
The 1980s marked a resurgence of the hard line approach in US relations with Cuba. The 1980 Mariel Boatlift, bringing about 125,000 Cuban refugees to the US, focused attention on migration as a major issue of concern between the two countries and a bilateral agreement was reached in 1984 seeking to relieve the problem. Despite this promising co-operation, newly inaugurated president Reagan re-established the ban on travel and relations between the countries remained tense as Cuba continued to support revolutionaries throughout the region.
The 1990s marked a major change in the external situation with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since this time, Cuba has been muted in the international scene. Indeed, the country no longer maintains a significant armed force, and is not internationally important in either economic or political terms. The seemingly perverse response of the US to the above developments was to strengthen sanctions under the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (although US objectives at the time were to act as a catalyst to the regime’s ‘imminent’ collapse).[6] The embargo was then officially codified and tightened further still, following the shooting down of two planes belonging to US nationals, in the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (Helms-Burton). In the context of weakening Cuban international relevance, the motives of the US policy shifted away from opposition to Cuban support of international ‘subversion’, and towards reshaping Cuban internal characteristics. This included not only the promotion of democracy and human rights, but also to "provide for the economic prosperity the Cuban Government’s retrograde economic policies were denying its people".[7]
This shift in focus of the embargo, from external to internal politics, created a priority of inducing the collapse or transformation of the Castro regime. In official terms this is defined as the promotion of democracy and human rights. "The fundamental goal of United States policy toward Cuba is to promote a peaceful transition to a stable, democratic form of government and respect for human rights".[8] However, the provision within Title II of the Helms-Burton Law, declaring that US sanctions will remain in place until free and fair elections are held that specifically do not include either Fidel or Raul Castro, testifies to the real motivation of contemporary US policy as the removal of the Castro regime. The US stance has been justified domestically by well-documented human rights violations in Cuba under the current regime.
In summary, while the current overriding objective of US policy can be assumed to be the removal of the Castro regime, there have been (and arguably still are) a number of secondary motivations, either overtly claimed or inferred, including: the promotion of human rights, democracy, and economic prosperity; ensuring the return of US capital confiscated following the revolution; and, severance of the Soviet-Cuban alliance. Have any of these objectives been realised?
[1] "The Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions with respect to Cuba," United States International Trade Commission Publication 3398, Investigation No. 332-413, USITC, February 2001.
[2] Wayne Smith, "Cuba: Problems with Current US Policy" Foreign Policy in Focus 2(8) (January 1997).
[3] Donna Rich Kaplowitz, Anatomy of a Failed Embargo: US Sanctions Against Cuba, (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998).
[4] Ernest Preeg, "Case Studies of Comprehensive Unilateral Economic Sanctions by the United States," in Altering U.S. Sanctions Policy, Final Report of the CSIS Project on Unilateral Economic Sanctions, (Washington, CSIS Publication, 1999) p. 26.
[5] Smith, "Cuba," p. 1.
[6] Representative Robert Torricelli assured US policy makers that this legislation would lead to Castro’s ouster within weeks. See Smith, "Cuba," p. 2.
[7] James B. Cunningham, US Representative at the UN General Assembly, speaking in response to the adoption of the draft resolution on the necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba (document A/54/L.9) (27 November 2001).
[8] 1999 US State Department policy brief, "U.S.-Cuba Relations,". http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/policy.html Fortsetzung: The US Embargo on Cuba
Druckversion
Seite empfehlenbookmarken bei...
