Embargo to Cuba opposed

Fidel Castro only turned to the Soviet Union two years after he overthrew Fulgencio Batista in 1959. Before that, the American government had actually looked on with approval at his coup, since Castro had worked with a wide spectrum of persons, including liberals, to oust Batista and had originally described his new regime as "humanistic". It wasn’t until two years later, having turned to the USSR for economic and political support to keep himself in power, that Castro declared himself a "Marxist-Leninist". Yet the US publicly embargo might still not have happened if then — Soviet Premier, Nikita Kruschev, had not publicly warned the US of the danger of retaliation if America took military action against Cuba. Kruschev also declared that the Monroe Doctrine — an 1823 presidential declaration that the Americas would no longer be zones for imperial acquisitions by European powers — was dead. To prove him wrong, the Eisenhower administration put an embargo on all exports to Cuba.

The embargo, therefore, was a direct consequence of Cold War politics. But that war was effectively ended a quarter-century ago. In the 21st century, the only remaining Communist states are North Korea, Cuba, and China. This means that the US does not have to worry about the so-called Red Threat anymore. Yet an embargo opposed by almost every other member of the United Nations, and one which has failed to achieve its ends, continues to be imposed by the world’s only remaining superpower.

Part of the reason for this is domestic politics — the American government believes that Cuban exiles in the US wield enough political clout to affect national elections. But the greater reason is simply the habit of demonisation — Castro has so long been seen as the premier thorn in America’s backyard that successive presidents have been reluctant to give Cuba any leeway lest this be seen as admitting even the smallest defeat.

This is a foolish approach, because Cuba remains a repressive regime with a stagnant economy, and history demonstrates that the most effective way to overthrow such regimes is not by covert CIA operations or military sabre-rattling, but through trade and by pushing the merits of democracy.

But Cuba is not without blame in this affair, since demonising the US is what has kept Castro in power for the last 56 years. The Cuban government now describes the blockade as an act of "genocide and war". It is quite obvious, however, that America does not wish to kill all Latin Americans nor even all Cubans — it only wants to see Castro gone and Communism dismantled. But the Cuban government benefits politically from the rhetoric of demonisation, which is why earlier this week it refused the US offer of aid in the wake of Hurricane Wilma.Still, the onus is on America to make the first move.

Lifting the embargo, far from being politically embarrassing as the US State Department seems to think, will actually win America some much-needed points. Such a move would display the compassion, diplomacy, and self-confidence that is expected of the world’s most powerful nation. Maintaining the blockade, however, will only further justify the anti-American sentiments that have grown louder in recent years.