6 Questions with Fidel Castro’s Worst Nightmare (Part II of II)
Yesterday’s post was the first in a two part interview with writer and blogger Henry Louis Gomez. Today’s post wraps up that interview and explores the effects of the U.S. Embargo currently restricting trade with Cuba. All comments and critiques are welcome.
RHM: Do you think the United States’ complete blockade on Cuba has been effective in any way?
HLG: I don’t know of any “blockade” on Cuba. That’s a word the regime uses and it’s false. A blockade would mean that American Navy ships were preventing anything from entering or leaving Cuba as was the case during the missile crisis. The U.S. has a limited commercial embargo on Cuba which was put in place as a reaction to the largest expropriation of American assets in history. We’re talking about $1.8 billion dollars (more than $8 billion in today’s dollars). Simply put, Cuba violated the rules of international trade and is being punished for it. They need to come to the table and make restitution before American businesses can feel secure in their investments. I say limited because Cuba today imports about 3/4 of all its food and its largest food supplier is the U.S. Most people don’t know this but the embargo does have a loophole in it that allows Cuba to buy agricultural products from the U.S. on a cash up-front basis. They buy about half a billion dollars worth of American agricultural products annually. Obviously the embargo has not brought the regime down. But I don’t think it’s fair to ascribe that goal to it. It does put pressure on the regime. It does deny the regime resources that it would use for what it has always used its resources, namely repress the Cuban people and subvert other countries. In the years immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union the embargo became relevant for the first time because of the disappearance of Soviet subsidies to Cuba. Cuba was plunged into crisis and there were riots in the streets of Havana. Unfortunately there were no shortage of foreign investors willing to hop into bed with a totalitarian dictatorship and their inflow of cash helped stabilize Cuba. Later Hugo Chavez was elected in Venezuela and that country became Cuba’s benefactor. Simply put, without outside help the dictatorship in Cuba can’t survive. I just don’t see how the U.S. joining the long list of countries that trades with Cuba will change the calculus.
RHM: Thanks for correcting my terminology (blockade versus limited embargo). What would you say to those who argue that the embargo has only succeeded in hurting the Cuban people instead of the regime (the intended target)?
HLG: The Castro regime is like a crack addict that wants to collect its inheritance. You know damn well that he’s just going to blow it on what he’s always blown it on, crack. In the case of Cuba it’s weapons and repression. The embargo did not cause (and does not presently cause) Cuba to collectivize its industries under a failed Marxist model. If the U.S. were to drop the embargo without first gaining some concessions (rehab) all that would happen is that army of American tourists would descend on Cuba (like Canadians and Brits before them) and the regime would have a few more dollars in its coffers which it more than likely won’t share with the people. Until Cuba allows for private enterprise, private property, and competition, any removal of sanctions is destined to have the same outcome as we’ve seen from other foreign investment in Cuba: nothing. If every other country trades with Castro, Inc. on its terms and nothing improved, why would American investment and tourism under the same conditions be any different? Besides, what signal does it send to the political prisoners, whose liberty is a presently a condition for removal of the embargo, if the U.S. were to unilaterally remove sanctions against Cuba? What message would it send to other would-be opponents of the regime?
RHM: Santo Domingo (where I live) recently hosted the Rio Group Summit consisting of all of the Latin American heads of state. It was clear that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was the star attraction. What do you think of his growing influence and voice in global politics?
HLG: Chavez has proven himself to be a clown. He’s wasting the birthright of all of Venezuelans by trying to buy influence in the region. He’s destroying the Venezuelan economy and was rebuffed by the populace for trying to grab even more power than he has to date. I think with each passing day, he’s becoming more radioactive. In Bolivia the congress passed a resolution calling for a referendum on Chavez’ buddy, Evo Morales. I think Chavez is the key to what happens in Cuba. If he were to be removed from office then the gravy train in Havana would end and the pressure would really be on the regime to make real changes.
Henry Louis Gomez blogs regularly at Babalu and CubanAmericanPundits.com. In addition, he recently published a very cool article about Cubans who risk it all by blogging from Havana.
About the Author: Randall H. Miller is an American college educator/blogger. He is also a former U.S. Army officer (82nd Airborne) with a M.A. in Diplomacy (focusing on International Terrorism) and a B.A. in Criminal Justice. Use the form on the right to sign up and receive notifications of new content. The words and ideas expressed here are 100% his own and not those of his employers or affiliated organizations.
Jonathan Rishel | May 24, 2008 | Reply
Mr. Gomez Hit the nail on the head with the hammer on his story/interview.Way to go Henry for telling it like it is.It is sooo funny how we USA woory about terrorist around the world when we have them 90 miles(Cubas/venezuela Castro Chaves Regime) away trying to destroy our way of life and creating HAVOC in central and south america on our doorsteps.