Miami Herald Calls for End of Embargo
in a move that is sure to spark controversy in heavily-Cuban Miami, the Miami Herald is yet another voice adding to the "time to rethink US policy towards Cuba" in the wake of Fidel's illness.
the main points are worth highlighting:
If Cuba were any other country (think China, Vietnam, North Korea), the first consideration would be security. Does a Cuba governed by Raul Castro or one of the younger senior Communist Party officials constitute a threat to U.S. security? Does it have weapons of mass destruction or support terrorists operating abroad?
If the answer is No, then the diplomatic and economic sanctions of the kind imposed against Cuba over the past four-plus decades would be difficult to justify. While it is the responsibility of U.S. officials to constantly monitor and reassess security threats, especially with unfriendly states -- and Cuba is no friend of the United States -- there is no credible case that Cuba is a threat to our national security.
A second consideration is whether there are common interests. Given close geographic proximity, the United States and Cuba share a fragile marine environment with major shipping lanes and recently discovered deep-sea petroleum deposits. Both countries also must cope with the same natural disasters. Then there is human traffic across the Straits of Florida. These are all challenges that could be better managed through closer government-to-government contact and coordination.
Economic gains are a third consideration. Cuba could be an important market for U.S. exports and destination for U.S. private investment. The embargo has put Cuba beyond the reach of U.S. companies (and U.S. tourists) while European, Canadian, Latin American and Asian businesses trade and invest in the island's slowly recovering economy.
This suggests a fourth criterion: Does our policy have the support of other countries, especially of our allies? The answer is a resounding No. Every year the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly passes a motion condemning the U.S. embargo on Cuba, and Washington typically can count on fewer than a handful of votes supporting the embargo. Designed to isolate Castro, U.S. policy has isolated Washington and opened the door for the rest of the world to conduct economic relations with Cuba.
See Full Story
the main points are worth highlighting:
If Cuba were any other country (think China, Vietnam, North Korea), the first consideration would be security. Does a Cuba governed by Raul Castro or one of the younger senior Communist Party officials constitute a threat to U.S. security? Does it have weapons of mass destruction or support terrorists operating abroad?
If the answer is No, then the diplomatic and economic sanctions of the kind imposed against Cuba over the past four-plus decades would be difficult to justify. While it is the responsibility of U.S. officials to constantly monitor and reassess security threats, especially with unfriendly states -- and Cuba is no friend of the United States -- there is no credible case that Cuba is a threat to our national security.
A second consideration is whether there are common interests. Given close geographic proximity, the United States and Cuba share a fragile marine environment with major shipping lanes and recently discovered deep-sea petroleum deposits. Both countries also must cope with the same natural disasters. Then there is human traffic across the Straits of Florida. These are all challenges that could be better managed through closer government-to-government contact and coordination.
Economic gains are a third consideration. Cuba could be an important market for U.S. exports and destination for U.S. private investment. The embargo has put Cuba beyond the reach of U.S. companies (and U.S. tourists) while European, Canadian, Latin American and Asian businesses trade and invest in the island's slowly recovering economy.
This suggests a fourth criterion: Does our policy have the support of other countries, especially of our allies? The answer is a resounding No. Every year the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly passes a motion condemning the U.S. embargo on Cuba, and Washington typically can count on fewer than a handful of votes supporting the embargo. Designed to isolate Castro, U.S. policy has isolated Washington and opened the door for the rest of the world to conduct economic relations with Cuba.
See Full Story
posted by Yimboro | 6:53 PM
1 Comments:
what the US would accomplish is to get on the ground in Cuba and hopefully have some influence, through possitive reinforcement, on upcoming events.
at the moment, the US is using negative reinforcement (the embargo). it hasn't worked and it won't work.
on a much smaller scale than China, the US could influence Cuba's path if the Cuban government and the US government have things in common (such as US investment in the island).
and you're right. Cuba does business with the rest of the world, including the European Union, China, and Venezuela.
what the US has done is remove itself from the playing field, and has ceded influence over Cuba to those nations that have economic relationships with Cuba.
hope that makes sense
Post a Comment
<< Home