A week ago, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro ended his nearly 50 years as president. Many in the international community see this as an opportunity for Cuba to democratize, urging Fidel's brother Raul, the acting head of state, to schedule open and free multiparty elections.
The United States has imposed a trade embargo upon Cuba since 1962. Though the U.S. is happy to see Castro step down, the Bush administration says that democratization is a requirement for the embargo's repeal.
The two sides of this argument agree that Fidel Castro was a brutal dictator who imprisoned political enemies and suppressed democracy for half a century. People who agree with the current U.S. position say that trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba would be a concession, viewed by Cuba as U.S. approval for its political system. Others argue the opposite, that U.S. diplomacy and trade with Cuba could spread American values about freedom.
The temptation is to view the situation as a catch-22: Cuba will only democratize if the embargo is lifted, but the U.S. will only lift the embargo if Cuba democratizes.
Can it really be that simple? And if not, what is the solution?
To answer these questions, the notion that the embargo is the result of U.S. aversion to dictatorship must first be tested. Then, if Cuba's system of government is proven to not be enough to justify the embargo, the existence of other causes must be considered.
Testing the "dictatorship" reasoning is easy. Just a single question must be answered before going any further: Has the U.S. ever conducted trade with an equally or more harsh regime in the past 50 years?
The U.S. backed a coup in 1973 to overthrow Chile's democratically elected government under Salvador Allende. Into power arose Augusto Pinochet, whose regime killed, tortured, imprisoned and "disappeared" tens of thousands of Chileans. Chile and the U.S. traded extensively during this period.
Romania under Ceausescu had a similarly poor human rights record, and was granted most favored nation trade status from the U.S. government in 1975. And the Bush administration has maintained trade and diplomatic relations with Pakistan's military dictatorship.
These are only a few of those which show that the U.S. does not have a policy of simply cutting off ties with antidemocratic regimes.
The effects of the embargo against Cuba are devastating and internationally condemned. The United Nations has voted for its repeal repeatedly since the 1990s, with just the U.S., Israel and sometimes the Marshall Islands and Uzbekistan among the nays.
With the history and consequences in mind, it is clear that the Cuban embargo cannot be continued for any moral purpose. Furthermore, it is a bad move politically; Hugo Chavez is extending influence over what could be an American-friendly country by trading Venezuelan oil for Cuban medical workers.
To send the message that the U.S. will support democracy in the 21st century, the embargo must be ended.
Kevin has not yet placed an embargo on your e-mails. Test his will at
"mailto:krking@asu.edu">krking@asu.edu.
