Fidel Castro, in a speech to the masses, has announced that he will not accept any more aid from the European Union as people connected with this organization have made critical comments about some of the policies of his regime.
Now if Fidel Castro actually keeps his word (I admit that this a dodgy assumption) his regime may soon fall.
Cuba has various sources of income. Some are not that important – for example the Castro regime’s drug dealing has long been limited by the desire to maintain plausible deniability (cocaine dealing having a negative public relations aspect in modern times – although at one time it was considered a respectable trade, and may one day be so considered again). Also there is little point for Latin American cocaine sellers to work via Cuba (when they can sell direct) – although some groups (such as the F.A.R.C. and the E.L.N. in Colombia) have an ideological interest in working with Cuba.
Other sources of finance are important, but also vulnerable. For example the cheap oil from Venezuela depends on the President there continuing to hold power. Now whilst it is true that large sections of the population continue to be part of the ‘Chavez cult’ (the President is consided a sort of God – who is to be worshipped no matter how much harm he causes his worshippers), the majority of the population are not part of the cult and the President may feel it sensible to sell oil at market prices to whoever wishes to buy it – or the President may lose power.
Then there is the nickel mining in Cuba. Nickel is a good source of money, however the mining depends on western companies and both the E.U. and Canada seem to be getting tired of encouraging private companies to operate in Cuba (considering the way these companies tend to get treated there). The belief that Castro should be supported because he is a ‘progressive’ (and also as a good way of twisting the tail of the United States) is finally slipping away. Also the fad of Cuba tourism seems to be losing its shine. Pre Castro musicians are dying off and pre Castro buildings are decaying (in spite of all the aid sent to prevent their decay).
This leaves Cuba with the income sent home by Cubans living overseas.
It is ironic that such an important source of income for Cuba (perhaps more important than tourism) is from people in the United States sending money back to their families.
A regime that depends on the population being supported by people living in the ‘great enemy’ can hardly be considered a strong one.
My guess (it can be no more than that) is that Fidel Castro will be out (or dead) within a year.
Nice to see the buffoonery of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Hussein et al continues apace. There is none so foolish as the willing devotee. Boxer from Animal Farm springs to mind.
There’ll be other Castros because human nature is too willing to allow them to flourish.
Interesting post. I am a big supporter of the Cuban exile community in the US and have always joined them in supporting the embargo.
Recently returning from Europe, it seems that the embargo is futile if nobody else supports it. Cuban cigars are for sale in every British and Irish pub. And that it might be better economically, morally and more effective to subvert the island from the inside — flood them with Capitalism.
The US pursues this policy with China, yet embargoes Cuba. Sometimes I think it might be better to switch then around. I am very torn on this topic — Samidatites?
What is this, commies-fight-amongst-themselves week?
I’d have to check but I think Bush has actually stopped the practice of Cuban exiles/immigrants in the US sending money home to their families.
People have been predicting that the government of Cuba would “soon fall” for longer than I’ve been alive. With all respect to Mr. Marks, most of them have connections to a Cuban exile community with a long history of wishful thinking about its former homeland. Cuban exile predictions of the Communists’ imminent demise were wrong before, and are almost certainly wrong now.
Believe it or not, this is good news. The United States is not prepared right now to deal with the consequences of turmoil in Cuba, one of which would very likely be a tidal wave of new immigrants to Florida. Our immigration services are not prepared, our political leaders are not prepared, our law enforcement agencies aren’t even close to being prepared. But because we know Castro will die someday and have good reason to believe a post-Castro regime will be significantly different than the one in place now, we have time to lay the foundations for a successful transition policy.
That we have time does not mean we will use it well, but those with an interest in American involvement in other parts of the world had better hope that we do, because a crisis in Cuba could reduce Washignton’s interest in an active foreign policy beyond the Western Hemisphere dramatically.
I think that the US embargo has been a bad idea for years now. JK was right to point out that we have continued to trade heavily with China for decades now under the assumption that it would help to spread political and economic liberalism. And it has.
The Cuban missle crisis happened years ago, and we need to move on. The best way to oust Castro? Kill ’em with Capitalism! A flood of trade, tourism and influence from America would send the Cuban dictatorship spinning.
Another thoughtful summing up from Zathras!
Just curious, does everyone here think Cuba is exactly as bad a regime as North Korea? They seem both nasty but rather different to me [for example, Mussolini versus Hitler?], but I’m not clear who else thinks this.
I’m undecided on the issue of the embargo. For a while I had believed that lifting it and flooding them with trade is the way to go – discredit the regime and it’s ideology and provide the Cubans with a better standard of living.
But recently I’ve had second thoughts. Trade with everyone else has done little to weaken Castro’s control or better economic conditions. Totalitarian regimes have learned how to manipulate all deals with outsiders to their own benefit (see N. Korea). All companies doing business in Cuba pay wages to the government, not the employees. Employees only get a tiny fraction of what they earn.
I wonder if these foreign entities are view as collaborating with regime by people whose resentment must certainly be growing due to being denied wages, denied access to tourist and trade zones, and forced to resort to prostitution (if they have no relatives living abroad).
In some senses, trade only props up the regime.
The EU made “critical comments” about the Castro regime?
Well, it just goes to prove the old adage that even a stopped clock is right occasionally.
“It is ironic that such an important source of income for Cuba (perhaps more important than tourism) is from people in the United States sending money back to their families.”
You would probably be surprised to know that this is true for a lot of countries, particularly those of Central America.
Zathras:
” …. a crisis in Cuba could reduce Washignton’s interest in an active foreign policy beyond the Western Hemisphere dramatically.”
Good point. Here’s hoping Castro pops it tomorrow.
Cydonia
It seems to me that each time the US relaxes a bit with Cuba, Castro responds by cracking down and/or releasing another flood of refugees. I’m opposed to the embargo too, but I don’t think lifting it will prevent another exodus to Florida.
As the Soviet Union was collapsing I had the thought that dropping the American embargo then, coupled with the end of Soviet subsidies and general demoralization among Communists in Cuba could be the torpedo below the waterline we had been looking for. The situation is different now, however, and rather than thinking in terms of how to calibrate American trade policy so as to achieve political change in Cuba we ought to proceed on the assumption that change is inevitable, and prepare for its consequences.
The question was asked whether Cuba’s regime was better or the same than North Korea’s. On the one hand, the question of government-induced famine does not arise with Cuba, nor (now) does that of nuclear weapons. On the other, Cuba is only 90 miles away from the United States. Provided the North Korean nuclear issue can be settled satisfactorily, North Korea in every other sense is someone else’s problem, and Cuba is no one else’s problem.
It’s great how you guys don’t even bother with some perfunctory Newsmax links to back up your wild allegations. Why not add that Castro is using baby skin for cigar paper, or something? Really you can do better than “drug dealing” and “terrorism”, that’s so cliche. At least work pedophilia into it somehow.
I thought tourism was one of Cuba’s biggest sources of income?
oops, yes – “losing it’s shine” – missed that.
Evan:
“It’s great how you guys don’t even bother with some perfunctory Newsmax links to back up your wild allegations.”
This from 1989
“Elsewhere in the Americas Cuba was rocked by a 1989 drug scandal that linked top government officials with Medellín kingpin Pablo Escobar in the transport of six tons of cocaine to the U.S. through Cuba. Castro executed four offenders and jailed many others”
Happy?
Cydonia
What about tobacco? That’s always been a lucrative export industry for Cuba.
From a libertarian perspective, clearly an embargo of any kind is morally repugnant. Travelling to Cuba, or entering into an economic exchange with a resident of that country, does not infringe anyone’s rights – therefore it is wrong to make such activities illegal. Besides, how perverse is it to punish American citizens for the crimes of a repressive foreign regime?
From a pragmatic perspective, the emargo policy has been a complete and utter failure. Over 40 years since seizing power, Castro still rules Cuba with an iron fist, and the lot of ordinary Cubans is worse than almost any other previously communist country (North Korea excepted). Is it any coincidence that the countries which the US bars trade with, still have the most repressive regimes? And those where trade is widespread, have slowly opened up their societies, and are showing a clear trend towards significantly rising living standards, and in most cases less political repression.
The Cuba emargo is the US foreign policy equivalent of gun control legislation – repressive, cowardly, and utterly useless in achieving its stated goals.
“From a libertarian perspective, clearly an embargo of any kind is morally repugnant. Travelling to Cuba, or entering into an economic exchange with a resident of that country, does not infringe anyone’s rights – therefore it is wrong to make such activities illegal.”
That is all true up to a point, of course, and I fear that Cuba may be on the far side of that point. The problem is that trade with Cuba is not an economic exchnage with a resident of the country, it is a deal with a totalitarian government, which will then generally take your money, turn around and exploit its citizens on your behalf to deliver its side of the deal.
On current terms, I think the embargo is probably not a bad policy, because we aren’t really embargoing trade with the Cuban people – the Cuban government is the organization that has imposed and is enforcing that embargo. The only available terms of trade with Cuba are trade with the government, so far as I know. I have no problem with embargos on trade with totalitarian governments, although I think we should take advantage of any opportunity to trade directly with the subjects of totalitarian regimes.
Following on from T Hartin’s point, it is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the USG had lifted the embargo in relation to dealings with all private individuals in Cuba and kept it in place only for dealings with the Cuban State.
Cydonia
Cydonia –
I suspect that we would have seen an outbreak of fraud as the Castro regime dressed up deals with the state as deals with private individuals. The phrase “lipstick on a pig” comes to mind.
Still, if the embargo was phrased as an embargo on all trading with the Castro government or its affiliates, it might be a lot easier to sell to the people. Oddly, the phrase “lipstick on a pig” still comes to mind.
Mr. Bright does have a troubling point – that the embargo has failed, because Castro is still in power. I’mgenerally not a big fan of continuing failed policies.
Still, I doubt that the US embargo has made much of a difference to living conditions in Cuba – the island absorbed billions in Soviet aid, and through trade with the rest of the world has access to more markets than it can handle, so I doubt the lack of access to US markets has made much of a difference. I suspect that the there is a missing middle term in any attempt to equate US embargos with craphole economies – it isn’t “craphole economy because US embargos” so much as it is “craphole economy because totalitarian nutcase runs the joint, and US embargos totalitarian nutcase.”
One question that everyone tends to gloss over with old “l’estat, c’est moi” Castro is what happens after the old butcher dies or resigns? A lot of people seem to assume that once he kicks off, Cuba will be free and trade can resume. I seriously doubt that – the Communist regime in Cuba is no doubt planning to survive Castro’s demise.
Exactly. Post-Castro scenarios range from continued dictatorship to peaceful transition to democracy to traditional Latin kleptocracy to civil war. It also makes a difference if Castro dies suddenly or fades away over a period of many years. We don’t know which of these scenarios is most likely, nor what the implications of each might be. There are a lot of contingencies to be prepared for, and we could save ourselves a lot of trouble if we started preparing for them now.
” The problem is that trade with Cuba is not an economic exchnage with a resident of the country, it is a deal with a totalitarian government, which will then generally take your money, turn around and exploit its citizens on your behalf to deliver its side of the deal.”
That is true for voluntary trades with the government, but not mere travel to the country, or trades on the black market.
I accept that there is a case (although I don’t agree with it) for sanctioning trade with the regime – but I can’t see how travel or trade with individual Cubans is wrong.
What would the US do if an American citizen married a Cuban? Would they really prevent one from meeting the other? To me that would be a barbaric policy.
“What would the US do if an American citizen married a Cuban? Would they really prevent one from meeting the other? To me that would be a barbaric policy.”
The Cuban would be eligible for American citizenship by virtue of the marriage, I believe, and could therefor travel to the US and live with his or her spouse. I would imagine that an Amercian visa would not be difficult to obtain. The interesting question is whether the Cuban regime would allow the Cuban to leave; the major obstacle to Cuban emigration is Cuban authorities, after all, not American ones.
The American is, of course, free as a practical matter to go live in Cuba if that’s OK with the Cubans – lots of Americans travel to and from Cuba all of the time. You just have to route through another country. America, unlike Cuba, does not prohibit its citizens from leaving the country without permission.
On Cuban farming. Well sugar production has been getting worse for a long time.
Cigars? I love the implications here for the P.C. Castro lovers “I must smoke for Fidel, but smoking is evil…….”
I must confess that I was surprised by the idea that I am optimist – I am not used to being called such a thing.