The Bowdoin Orient

For more than half a century, the United States has imposed a commercial, economic and financial embargo against Cuba in an effort to subvert the communist regime and deprive it of resources. Friday marks the 19,539th day since the Kennedy administration initiated this foolish policy, which has been preserved by every president since. 

The embargo—the longest imposed by any country in modern history—is a Cold War anachronism that has no place in the 21st century and one that is cause for national embarrassment. President Obama has started to take action designed to dismantle the embargo’s framework, but it will be an impossible task without the consent of Congress and, unfortunately, the denizens of Capitol Hill will likely be unwilling to get rid of something that has such a long (and proven) track record of failure.  

As a tool of foreign policy, the embargo has backfired. It has been a sticking point in Western Hemisphere diplomacy, creating tension with Latin American leaders and stymieing effective regional diplomatic efforts. In Cuba, the embargo has done little to encourage substantive change. It has become a useful scapegoat on which the communist regime can blame many of the country’s economic and social problems. 

That Cuba’s present financial difficulties are linked to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (which had been the destination for 80 percent of Cuba’s exports) is scarcely acknowledged in the state-run press. To be fair, blaming the “other” is by no means a feature unique to authoritarian states—American politicians of any political stripe are quick to blame China, Wall Street and/or immigrants for this country’s woes—but a democracy at least has a free press that can analyze and criticize these kinds of diversionary tactics. In Cuba, by contrast, no such freedom exists. 

Rather than create conditions that would allow democracy to flourish, the embargo has allowed the Cuban government to castigate the arrogance of American imperialism and present the régime’s endurance as an example of the inherent strengths of communist systems. The embargo has also allowed the government to justify crackdowns on dissidents and political enemies under a policy neatly summed up in the aphorism: “In a plaza under siege, dissidence is treasonous.” 

Supporters of the embargo like Speaker of the House John Boehner argue that the embargo shouldn’t be lifted “until the Cuban people enjoy freedom,” yet it is this same embargo that creates the conditions necessary for the communist government to remain in power. Besides, if the embargo exists because Cuba restricts human rights, where then are embargoes against Saudi Arabia and China? 

It will come as no surprise that I welcomed Obama’s announcement last December that the U.S. will move to break the political stalemate and resume normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. “We will end an outdated approach that for decades has failed to advance our interests,” he said, “and instead we will begin to normalize relations between our two countries.” 

Responding to the planned change, hawkish Florida senator Marco Rubio decried “a concession to tyranny” that “will significantly set back the hopes of freedom and democracy for the Cuban people.” For a man who claims to admire Ronald Reagan, Rubio seems to be oblivious to the historical realities that precipitated the collapse of the USSR and its satellites. Communism in Eastern Europe did not fall apart as a result of blockades or embargoes, nor did it end because of Reagan or Gorbachev. It ended because of shifting economic realities that pushed the eastern bloc to adopt policies of political and economic liberalization that opened those regimes to free market and democratic principles. While the situation of Cuba isn’t exactly comparable to the position of the Soviet bloc in 1989, it is clear that the embargo isn’t helping to bring about the change that needs to happen. 

At the recent Summit of the Americas in Panama, Obama admitted that it is “no secret that there will continue to be significant differences between” the U.S. and Cuba. These differences, however, cannot be a reason for Congress to block the administration’s efforts towards rapprochement. Unless the opponents of the president’s plan can show that the embargo has done something to fundamentally change Cuba for the better, there is no other choice: The embargo has got to go.