![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-x7_mwi5EYyZJxpzNqsvkYATDseYTHIovP09YKrIctspB17DY_5s2AeackCCaZqX14NV-rcs5S81-anUoEkQcrbMqc9hATVpw0uU3hH1tyIbe0iq0Jfe5iTwGlJaoODZXAOt_Kg/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
Are Sanctions Ethical?
A couple of days ago I posted about an article in the Sun-Sentinel which talked about how the U.S. travel restrictions are hurting ordinary Cubans. Yesterday I received an e-mail from Phil Peters of the Lexington Institute who was quoted in the Sun-Sentinel article. He was kind enough to provide me with his five points as to why the U.S. sanctions against Cuba are wrong.
Below, I've listed Mr. Peters' points, with my reply in italics after each one.
I thank Mr. Peters for his courteous e-mail, and I welcome him and the rest of the readers out there to take part in the continuation of this discussion. It's better to talk about this, even if we don't agree, than to ignore it totally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The point of sanctions is to hurt a country’s economy. But you can’t really hurt an economy without hurting the people who live in it. Cuba’s economy is already hurting because of Cuba’s economic policies, but the embargo hurts too – it cuts that economy off from its largest neighbor and natural trading partner. I think if you argue in favor of the embargo, the argument only holds together if you accept that the embargo hurts Cuba’s economic welfare, and Cubans’ economic welfare, and then argue that there’s an ethical justification for it.
First we have to accept the fact that the "embargo" as it stands today is anything but. According to a recent story in the Rocky Mountain News, the U.S. was Cuba's largest food supplier in 2005, U.S. exports to Cuba totalled $400 million in 2004, and Cuba bought $900 million worth of agricultural goods in the past 5 years. The rest of the world can and does trade freely with Cuba. The question then becomes; why aren't those goods getting to the Cuban people efficiently and in mass quantities? The answer is simply because castro doesn't allow it to reach those who need it the most. We can end all sanctions tomorrow, and that sad fact won't change. The "embargo" isn't hurting the Cubans' economic welfare, the Cuban regime is. Ethically, I argue that lifting sanctions would be wrong because it would mean even more money flowing into fidel's pockets, which gives him even more strength and motivation to oppress his people. Multilateral sanctions which place pressure and demand that the regime recognize human rights and allow for free democratic elections is ethically right.
2. The intention behind our sanctions, U.S. officials say, is to affect the Cuban government, not the people. I don’t doubt the intention, but the impact of the new policies is to stop Cuban Americans from seeing their relatives too much, or from helping them too much. If you saw your Mom last year and she’s dying now, you can’t go see her, period. If you want to send your brother $500 to buy a refrigerator, that’s against the law. Unlike before, you can’t visit or send money to your aunt, cousin, or nephew at all, because U.S. regulations now say these are too-distant relations. If your aunt is 82 and depended on your $50 per month, that’s just too bad. If you are ever nostalgic about your local CDR, the U.S. government is supposedly using informants and sting operations to catch Cuban Americans who would evade these rules – that’s written in the transition report. If U.S. regulations limit family visits and acts of family charity, how they be defined as anything but sanctions aimed directly at Cuban families – even if they have a secondary impact of eventually denying revenue to the Cuban government?
I think the travel restrictions are a bit harsh, I stated as such in my original post. It punishes those who want to see a sick relative whom they may not see again. Unfortunately, a big reason why the restrictions were passed was because of those who abuse the system by sneaking in through a third country or go disguised in church groups, or are involved in spy operations, as we recently discovered here in Miami. A more humane, sensible policy is needed in this area.
3. The government says these sanctions on families are part of a series of measures that will “hasten the demise of the dictatorship” because, taken together, they cut $500 million annually from Cuba’s hard currency income. The CIA estimates that the Cuban economy is growing by about $1 billion a year. With rising tourism, high nickel prices, offshore oil discoveries, and Venezuela and China helping out, the new U.S. sanctions have no decisive political impact in Cuba. They are a manageable financial blow and a propaganda boon for the Cuban government, and they are decisively painful to Cuban families.
I agree that the sanctions aren't doing what they were intended to do. But that's not totally the United States' fault. Again, a multilateral approach would be much more effective. This also underscores the reasoning that opening the floodgates would at best have little impact, and more likely will make conditions even worse for the Cuban people. Cuba has been winning the propaganda war for a long time now, mainly because of the mainstream media's lack of willingness to tackle the regime's atrocities head-on. Imagine what would have happened in South Africa if only one or two countries would have participated in the sanctions against that country, and if the media would have totally ignored the atrocities there.
4. I don’t argue that unfettered travel will change the political order in Cuba. That would be as mistaken as arguing that the embargo, or Helms-Burton, or the new measures will do the same. I argue that travel and engagement are better than what we have now.
Based on all the statistics regarding U.S. - Cuba trade and record number of tourists flocking to Cuba from all over the world, I believe we've already catched a glimpse of what impact those factors would have on the Cuban society. As of now, the impact has been for the regime to oppress their citizens even more (dissident numbers are increasing, so are attacks against dissidents). Therefore, I can't see how increased travel and engagement would be better than the flawed policy we have today.
5. I can’t tell if you are arguing that the average Cuban does or doesn’t have access to lots of information. Regardless, my argument is that relatives and others who travel to Cuba bring information and ideas, not to mention income, that are beneficial to many, many Cubans. The Reagan policy toward the Soviet bloc and the Helsinki accords, to take two examples, encouraged a free flow of people and information and ideas regardless of other countries’ actions, because that was judged to be in our interest. I don’t think those policies were mistakes.
My argument is that the average Cuban knows more than we think. Why? Because of contact with relatives in the U.S. and abroad. Virtually every Cuban knows someone who has left the island. That means that Cubans know that they live in a repressive society, and that in other countries people have freedom of expression and other basic human rights. For many years, Cuban-Americans were able to visit relatives in Cuba once a year. Money in the form of remittances to relatives have totalled in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. All this contact, yet what has been the end result? More of the same, I'm afraid. Opening up Cuba would have little impact based on what we've seen.
Eastern Europe was blessed with people who stood up to the establishment and demanded change. The Soviet Union in particular was blessed with people from within the establishment who believed in change. That more than anything else is what caused change in those countries. Perhaps that will happen in Cuba once fidel dies. We'll have to wait and see.
The only constant during the past 47 years has been the Cuban regime's unwillingness to change, to grant its citizens freedom and basic rights. My argument is that we need to do everything we can to eliminate the source of the problem - the regime, not the United States' policy, as flawed as it is.
All I ask for is that the regime take active measures to promote freedom of expression and democracy, is that too much to ask for? In the meantime, we need to put the pressure on Cuba. The rest of the world needs to join us. It is most definitely in this country's best interest for a neighboring country to be free and loosened from the shackles of Marxism.
Below, I've listed Mr. Peters' points, with my reply in italics after each one.
I thank Mr. Peters for his courteous e-mail, and I welcome him and the rest of the readers out there to take part in the continuation of this discussion. It's better to talk about this, even if we don't agree, than to ignore it totally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The point of sanctions is to hurt a country’s economy. But you can’t really hurt an economy without hurting the people who live in it. Cuba’s economy is already hurting because of Cuba’s economic policies, but the embargo hurts too – it cuts that economy off from its largest neighbor and natural trading partner. I think if you argue in favor of the embargo, the argument only holds together if you accept that the embargo hurts Cuba’s economic welfare, and Cubans’ economic welfare, and then argue that there’s an ethical justification for it.
First we have to accept the fact that the "embargo" as it stands today is anything but. According to a recent story in the Rocky Mountain News, the U.S. was Cuba's largest food supplier in 2005, U.S. exports to Cuba totalled $400 million in 2004, and Cuba bought $900 million worth of agricultural goods in the past 5 years. The rest of the world can and does trade freely with Cuba. The question then becomes; why aren't those goods getting to the Cuban people efficiently and in mass quantities? The answer is simply because castro doesn't allow it to reach those who need it the most. We can end all sanctions tomorrow, and that sad fact won't change. The "embargo" isn't hurting the Cubans' economic welfare, the Cuban regime is. Ethically, I argue that lifting sanctions would be wrong because it would mean even more money flowing into fidel's pockets, which gives him even more strength and motivation to oppress his people. Multilateral sanctions which place pressure and demand that the regime recognize human rights and allow for free democratic elections is ethically right.
2. The intention behind our sanctions, U.S. officials say, is to affect the Cuban government, not the people. I don’t doubt the intention, but the impact of the new policies is to stop Cuban Americans from seeing their relatives too much, or from helping them too much. If you saw your Mom last year and she’s dying now, you can’t go see her, period. If you want to send your brother $500 to buy a refrigerator, that’s against the law. Unlike before, you can’t visit or send money to your aunt, cousin, or nephew at all, because U.S. regulations now say these are too-distant relations. If your aunt is 82 and depended on your $50 per month, that’s just too bad. If you are ever nostalgic about your local CDR, the U.S. government is supposedly using informants and sting operations to catch Cuban Americans who would evade these rules – that’s written in the transition report. If U.S. regulations limit family visits and acts of family charity, how they be defined as anything but sanctions aimed directly at Cuban families – even if they have a secondary impact of eventually denying revenue to the Cuban government?
I think the travel restrictions are a bit harsh, I stated as such in my original post. It punishes those who want to see a sick relative whom they may not see again. Unfortunately, a big reason why the restrictions were passed was because of those who abuse the system by sneaking in through a third country or go disguised in church groups, or are involved in spy operations, as we recently discovered here in Miami. A more humane, sensible policy is needed in this area.
3. The government says these sanctions on families are part of a series of measures that will “hasten the demise of the dictatorship” because, taken together, they cut $500 million annually from Cuba’s hard currency income. The CIA estimates that the Cuban economy is growing by about $1 billion a year. With rising tourism, high nickel prices, offshore oil discoveries, and Venezuela and China helping out, the new U.S. sanctions have no decisive political impact in Cuba. They are a manageable financial blow and a propaganda boon for the Cuban government, and they are decisively painful to Cuban families.
I agree that the sanctions aren't doing what they were intended to do. But that's not totally the United States' fault. Again, a multilateral approach would be much more effective. This also underscores the reasoning that opening the floodgates would at best have little impact, and more likely will make conditions even worse for the Cuban people. Cuba has been winning the propaganda war for a long time now, mainly because of the mainstream media's lack of willingness to tackle the regime's atrocities head-on. Imagine what would have happened in South Africa if only one or two countries would have participated in the sanctions against that country, and if the media would have totally ignored the atrocities there.
4. I don’t argue that unfettered travel will change the political order in Cuba. That would be as mistaken as arguing that the embargo, or Helms-Burton, or the new measures will do the same. I argue that travel and engagement are better than what we have now.
Based on all the statistics regarding U.S. - Cuba trade and record number of tourists flocking to Cuba from all over the world, I believe we've already catched a glimpse of what impact those factors would have on the Cuban society. As of now, the impact has been for the regime to oppress their citizens even more (dissident numbers are increasing, so are attacks against dissidents). Therefore, I can't see how increased travel and engagement would be better than the flawed policy we have today.
5. I can’t tell if you are arguing that the average Cuban does or doesn’t have access to lots of information. Regardless, my argument is that relatives and others who travel to Cuba bring information and ideas, not to mention income, that are beneficial to many, many Cubans. The Reagan policy toward the Soviet bloc and the Helsinki accords, to take two examples, encouraged a free flow of people and information and ideas regardless of other countries’ actions, because that was judged to be in our interest. I don’t think those policies were mistakes.
My argument is that the average Cuban knows more than we think. Why? Because of contact with relatives in the U.S. and abroad. Virtually every Cuban knows someone who has left the island. That means that Cubans know that they live in a repressive society, and that in other countries people have freedom of expression and other basic human rights. For many years, Cuban-Americans were able to visit relatives in Cuba once a year. Money in the form of remittances to relatives have totalled in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. All this contact, yet what has been the end result? More of the same, I'm afraid. Opening up Cuba would have little impact based on what we've seen.
Eastern Europe was blessed with people who stood up to the establishment and demanded change. The Soviet Union in particular was blessed with people from within the establishment who believed in change. That more than anything else is what caused change in those countries. Perhaps that will happen in Cuba once fidel dies. We'll have to wait and see.
The only constant during the past 47 years has been the Cuban regime's unwillingness to change, to grant its citizens freedom and basic rights. My argument is that we need to do everything we can to eliminate the source of the problem - the regime, not the United States' policy, as flawed as it is.
All I ask for is that the regime take active measures to promote freedom of expression and democracy, is that too much to ask for? In the meantime, we need to put the pressure on Cuba. The rest of the world needs to join us. It is most definitely in this country's best interest for a neighboring country to be free and loosened from the shackles of Marxism.
posted by Robert at 10:58 AM
4 Comments:
I had this very same discussion with Phil almost two years ago. I still have the report from the lexington Institute that he wrote and sent me.
I dont doubt that Phil's heart is in the right place, but his theory is inherently flawed. The fact that everything and anything is available in Cuba, RIGHT NOW, despite the embargo - from cellphones to six packs of Budweiser - and that the cuban people still do not have access to these proves that the only embargo in place in Cuba is the internal one imposed by fidel castro.
You can allow cubans to travel back and sedn all the money they want, it still will not change a damned thing within the system itself. With the exception, of course, that every single dime ultimately ends up in the pockets of the person or entity that controls the economy. And we all know who that is.
Tourists from all over the world have been traveling to Cuba for decades - decades - and what changes have occured? None. Cubans still cant go to hotels, still cant own businesses, still cant produce stuff to sell for themsleves. In essense, fidel castro not only controls the economy, but he controls the capabilities of cubans to fend for themsleves.
Val and George have said it better than I could...the problem is not the embargo, it is castro, plain and simple.
That being said, I truly appreciate Mr. Peters points, and appreciate his respectful rebuttal, as well as yours, Robert. Simple proof that we can disagree, but do it amicably.
Starving Cubans to death is not changing anything. Castro has been in power for 50 years, and his tourist industry has survived in spite of embargo and terrorist activities. Funny that people who live in a Capitalist Society and enjoy every perk would think that the solution is to punish those who did not run away from Castro.
Johnny how is the US starving Cubans? Are you not aware that the U.S. is the country that provides the most food and agricultural products to Cuba? Robert mentions it in his post but you obviously don't read. I guess we're supposed to just give castro stuff without expecting to be paid for it. Besides even if we stopped selling to Cuba tomorrow, I didn't know the US is the only country that sells food in this world. What about Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Bolivia, England, France and every other country Cuba is free to trade with? Don't blame the emabrgo for the Cuban people's woes. That just exposes you as an ally of the castro regime.
Post a Comment
<< Home