This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Formeruser-81 (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 15 November 2004 (→Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:52, 15 November 2004 by Formeruser-81 (talk | contribs) (→Criticism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)The United States embargo on Cuba (described in Cuba as el bloqueo, Spanish for "the blockade") is an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States on February 3, 1962. As of 2004, the embargo is still in effect, making it one of the most enduring trade embargoes in modern history. It remains an extremely controversial issue worldwide.
History
While the U.S. government had initially been supportive of the Cuban Revolution, it turned against Fidel Castro when the Cuban government began implementing large-scale nationalization of the economy without compensating American businesses that had been expropriated.
A partial embargo was imposed by President Eisenhower's government on October 19 1960. President Kennedy extended Eisenhower's measures, imposing a full economic embargo that took effect on February 3, 1962 as a response to Cuba's alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As of 2004, the embargo is still in effect, making it one of the most enduring trade embargoes in modern history.
The embargo was reinforced in October 1992 by the Cuban Democracy Act (the "Torricelli Law") and in 1996 by the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (known as the Helms-Burton Act). While the U.S. has sought to normalize trade relations with other Communist states such as the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, there is a large lobby among Cuban Americans, particularly those living in Florida, in favor of the embargo. This makes it politically difficult for either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party to substantially change American policy towards Cuba.
In response to pressure by American farmers and agribusiness, the embargo has been relaxed in recent years in order to allow the sale of food and agricultural goods to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. This change was mandated by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which was passed by the US Congress in October 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton. Though Cuba initially declined to engage in such trade, seeing it as a half measure serving U.S. interests, the Castro government began to allow the purchase of food from the U.S. as a result of Hurricane Michelle in November 2001 and has continued since then. As a result, Cuba ranked 180th (out of 180) on the list of importers of U.S. agricultural products in 2000, rising to 138th in 2001, and 45th in 2002. The country was estimated to rank 33rd on in 2003.
Effects
The Cuban government estimates that the direct economic damage caused to Cuba by the U.S. embargo since its institution exceeds $70 billion, including loss of export earnings, additional import costs, limiting the growth of the Cuban economy, and social damage. The U.S. International Trade Commission the on-going annual loss to U.S. exporters at $1.2 billion.
Nevertheless, the embargo had a limited effect on Cuba in its first few decades as the island nation was heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union and the Comecon nations which supplied Cuba with cheap oil and other goods. The Cuban government became the recipient of large subsidies from the Soviet Union, peaking at around $6 billion per annum in the 1980s.
The collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1989 and of the USSR itself two years later resulted in an economic crisis in Cuba and in the embargo having its greatest effect by denying Cuba the ability to replace Soviet imports with American ones. Cuba has developed trading relations the rest of the world, including a substantial amount of official (as well as much unofficial) trade with the U.S. but since the U.S. is the closest geographic entity to Cuba and the dominant producer in the region the necessity of importing goods from Europe instead of the U.S. at full market value made these goods more expensive due to transportation costs and thus made it more difficult for Cuba to pay for vital imports. Despite the difficulties created by the embargo in the 1990s, Cuba defied predictions that without Soviet support it would quickly collapse.
Though the leadership of the Cuban-American community is the main proponent of continuing the embargo, the policy has come to have a great effect on Cuban-American families, particularly more recent immigrants who still have family in Cuba, as they must circumvent the embargo in order to send goods to their relatives or even communicate with them.
It is estimated that each year some 80,000 Americans visit Cuba, including over 3,000 business visits. As much as $1 billion per year is remitted to Cuba by Cuban Americans. Much of this activity contravenes the spirit, if not the letter, of the embargo. Cuba produces a number of luxury items, especially cigars that are thought to be in high demand among some Americans. In popular culture, such as in novels, television shows, and motion pictures, rich and power men are often shown to have their own personal stock of illicitly obtained Cuban brandy and cigars. Although the embargo itself may be partially responsible for the notion, it is accepted by many Americans that the "best" cigars are Cuban cigars.
One of the visible manifestations of the embargo is the almost complete absence of modern automobiles on the streets of Havana. Instead, Cubans have made a virtue out of the necessity of keeping pre-1960 American automobiles in running order making Cuba a haven for 1950s vintage American cars.
Criticism
Some critics of the embargo argue that rather than underminining the socialist nature of the Cuban system it tied Cuba even more closely to the USSR and resulted in it closely following the Communist model. Other critics point out the contradiction between the United States policy of isolating Cuba and its constructive engagement towards Communist states such as the People's Republic of China and Vietnam where it is argued that trade with the west is a means of encouraging economic reform. Some argue that this contradiction is not a result of a strategic policy but a product of domestic American politics and, particularly, the impact of the Cuban-American lobby on American electoral considerations, particularly due to the importance to presidential aspirants of winning Florida.
The embargo has been the source of almost unanimous international criticism. Annual votes in the United Nations General Assembly that call on the U.S. to lift its sanctions pass with exceptionally large majorities (173 to 3 in 2002; 179 to 4 in 2004). In the 2004 vote, only the U.S., Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau voted aganist the resolution (with Micronesia abstaining).
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular who resent the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-American corporations and non-American investors who have encomic interests in Cuba. In the Canadian House of Commons, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law).
See also
External links
- 2001 Report by the Cato Institute
- The Effects of the U.S. Embargo Against Cuba
- Timeline of the embargo
- Timeline of votes by the U.N. General Assembly
- U.S. embargo against Cuba fades away article on growing Cuban-American trade in food.
- What Castro wants Time letter about the cuban embargo.