Embargo on Cuba is Ineffective, says GOP Senator
February 23, 2009
From the moral point of view, the late Pope John Paul II declared the U.S. embargo against Cuba to be “deplorable.” Today, from the foreign policy point of view, Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, labeled the embargo “ineffective.” Not only has the embargo had diasterous effects on the lives of millions of poor and needy Cubans, it has failed to realize the very end which its defenders cite as justifying it, namely, the conjuring up of democratic values in Cuba.
25 Comments
Comments are closed.
To call the embargo ineffective would be an understatement. Hopefully with Fidel moving out of power, politicians will be more open to a change of policy here.
The embargo is, and has always been, the Castro regime’s biggest propaganda tool.
…it has failed to realize the very end which its defenders cite as justifying it, namely, the conjuring up of democratic values in Cuba.
An important question is: who gets to define “democracy” and who gets to decide which political and economic structures put it into practice? Not all “democracy” looks like u.s. “democracy.”
An important question is: who gets to define “democracy” and who gets to decide which political and economic structures put it into practice? Not all “democracy” looks like u.s. “democracy.”
This is true. In some countries, for example, democracy means free and open elections, the rule of law, freedom of speech and press, etc. Whereas in others it means having a single supreme leader who comes to power through violent revolution, never stands for election, has his political opponents murdered or imprisoned, doesn’t allow a free press, and so forth. I mean, who’s to say that one system is any more “democratic” than the other?
An important question is: who gets to define “democracy” and who gets to decide which political and economic structures put it into practice? Not all “democracy” looks like u.s. “democracy.”
Good point. Sort of reminds of those instances when Fr. Sirico or Michael Novak use “liberty” as if it were a univocal term, duping their disciples into believing that their notion of liberty is that which the Church holds.
Yes! Especially since so many Americans define such nonsense as the right to own firearms as an essential component of liberty.
Not all “democracy” looks like u.s. “democracy.”
Yes, that because the United States is(was?) a republic.
The embargo made sense, if we were alienating all communist regimes with horrible human rights records. But we trade openly with China, why not Cuba?
I’m glad blackadderiv has finally come around to see the light on an important issue of the day!
The Embargo, whose provisions have been tinkered with as the situation warrented, might or might not be ineffective. But I would like to see its opponents develop a positive programme to promote democracy in Cuba and help bring to an end the brutal Castro dictatorship. A free press, free trade unions, free speech and free elections are all denied to the Cuban people by the Castro brothers and the Communist goons that rule the country.
As for me, I’m willing to consider extending the embargo to Mainland China as well.
The embargo made sense, if we were alienating all communist regimes with horrible human rights records.
Made sense to whom? Certainly not to those who cared about the well being of the Cuban people. Economic embargoes, as Pope John Paul II, are always morally deplorable. If your only basis for your judgment is anti-Soviet foreign policy, then do not pretend that human rights violations was in any way the motivation for the embargo. So which way do you want it? Anti-Soviet policy or Catholic values?
Certainly not to those who cared about the well being of the Cuban people.
Technically, those responsible for their citizen’s well being (the leaders of the country) are responsible for those people who suffer, as the were responsible for murdering those who opposed them.
Let’s not forget Castro and Che were not nice people.
Technically, those responsible for their citizen’s well being (the leaders of the country) are responsible for those people who suffer, as the were responsible for murdering those who opposed them.
This is true if life were in a vacuum. Fortunately, when it comes to human rights and well being of humanity, Christ has shown us that we are all our brother’s keeper. Part of faithfully living that reality (as opposed to reading things secular y, as you typically do) is recognizing when harm is piled upon harm. So whatever suffering was happening at the hands of totalitarian dictatorship in Cuba, it is clear that the U.S. embargo has and does exacerbate that suffering.
And if you still wish to defend immoral foreign policy decisions, take it up with Pope John Paul II.
Let’s not forget Castro and Che were not nice people.
Who said they were? (By the way, the embargo became official and indefinite U.S. policy well after Che left Cuba)
In case you didn’t notice, I said cancel the embargo. We should have intervened when those communist terrorists murdered their way into power in the first place.
We should have intervened when those communist terrorists murdered their way into power in the first place.
We did. We failed. Bear in mind that Castro and Che “murdered” to take the power out of the hands of another “murderer.” The only difference is that the U.S. supported the first guy (Batista).
I strongly recommend that you do some reading on U.S. policy for Latin American between 1950-1993.
I’m glad blackadderiv has finally come around to see the light on an important issue of the day!
Hehehe. Actually, I’ve been opposed to the embargo for about as long as I can remember.
I strongly recommend that you do some reading on U.S. policy for Latin American between 1950-1993.
Thanks, I have, but thanks for the suggestion. Besides, I’m too busy trying to find a Che shirt in my favorite color, and the matching Che backpack.
Bear in mind that Castro and Che “murdered” to take the power out of the hands of another “murderer.” The only difference is that the U.S. supported the first guy (Batista).
Did the U.S. support Batista? I know you hear that, but my impression was that Batista was himself a pretty Communist friendly guy, and I know that the first Cuban embargo was the embargo on arms sales to the Cuban government the U.S. slapped on Batista in 1958.
Communist friendly guy, and I know that the first Cuban embargo was the embargo on arms sales to the Cuban government the U.S. slapped on Batista in 1958.
Batista was given funds by the CIA, and arms were supplied to him despite the straw embargo you mentioned. He was a strategic, anti-Soviet ally of the U.S. until the late 1950′s when the relationship grew a bit cold. He was nevertheless supported covertly until he fled Cuba.
I did not “hear” this, but read this in several books. Any general history book on 20th century Cuba mentions all this (you won’t find much online either way). You won’t get much from Wikipedia.
I did not “hear” this, but read this in several books.
Which books?
BA – Here’s Rise to Globalism by Brinkley & Ambrose, pgs. 167-168. It paints a somewhat complex picture; the U.S. and Batista co-existed and the U.S. funded the Cuban army when Batista was in power. But Eisenhower refused to try and re-instate him after Castro came to power because of his dictatorial tendencies. Here are some quotes
“Cuban life was controlled by Washington, for almost the only source of income was sugar, and by manipulating the amount of sugar allowed into the U.S., Washington directed the economy.
Fulgencio Batista was the Cuban dictator. He had come to power as a revolutionary but had adjusted to the realities of leading a small nation in which the United States had a large investment…his sole support was the Cuban Army, which was equipped by the United States…”
“[after Castro came to power] someone suggested that the United States help Batista return to power. Eisenhower refused – Batista was too much the dictator.”
John Henry,
Thanks.
NP – coincidentally read it earlier today for a seminar.
Anti-Soviet policy or Catholic values?
Not or. Catholic value ARE anti-Soviet. (In the days when their was a USSR).
Cuba is a repressive regime, like the rest of the Communist states and like Franco’s Spain, Pinochet’s Chile, white ruled South Africa, and Greece under the Colonels.
We can evaluate policies to oppose Communism based on effectivness, but our values still call us to oppose Communism and other forms of totalitarianism.
And yes, let’s stop importing crap from Mainland China.
An interesting thread of discussion. A Cuban friend of mine puts it well when he says that the Castro Brothers “need” the embargo. Without it they have no excuse for their failed economy and repressive regime. When there was pre-election talk that Obama would lift the embargo, Castro said that it has done so much damage that it would take 10 or 20 years after the embargo for thing to get better. Nothing like hedging your bets. http://talkingcuba.wordpress.com/
Nice stuff here… This topic has just recently sparked my interest, thanks for the insightful discourse…
As typical Fidel & Che apologists like yourself, you traffic in lies and subversion.
“By the way, the embargo became official and indefinite U.S. policy well after Che left Cuba”, this is an utter LIE.
Read the history books buddy, relations were broken under Eisenhower and Kennedy instituted the embargo, while your hero Che was still in Cuba as Minister of Economy!
Both my father and grandfather fought the Cuban Revolution and later they were both at the Bay of Pigs atttempting to overthrow that squalid regime which you still pay homage to in Havana….
Finally what “embargo”?
Cuba trades with every country on the planet, including the USA. (actually we are the #1 trading partner)
Remittances to Cuba from the USA are yearly in the tens of billions of dollars.
Tourists from every nation spend hundred of millions of dollars in Cuba yearly.
Focus on the repressive nature of that vile and odious regime, as opposed to parroting your talking points from Granma.