Join Our Newsletter!
X
February 11, 2009 - The press has made much of the announced closing of the military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But what about the rest of the island, still ruled by the Castro regime that has ground the nation of 11 million beneath its boot heels for 50 years now? Why do the Cuban people suffer so? The short answer is: they suffer because they live under a communist regime that has largely outlawed free enterprise, not to mention the free movement of people and the freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press.
The real mystery, though, is why the Cuban people’s misery continues to this day, fully two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when communism around the world has almost completely collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. Part of the explanation can be found in the cults of personality surrounding the long-lived Fidel Castro and the martyred Ernesto Guevara. (Yet another hagiographic film about “Che” has recently hit theatres.) Massive amounts of aid from the Soviet Union—and more recently from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, riding high the spike in oil prices—have also helped to prop up the regime. In addition to these factors, though, I believe the American government, however noble its intentions may have been, must shoulder some of the blame for the longevity of Cuban communism. Why? Because of its ongoing embargo of Cuba.
Those who are eager to blame America for all the world’s ills may argue that a) the U.S. never had any good reason for the embargo, and b) the embargo is the main cause of the suffering of the Cuban people. I am arguing neither of these things. To address the first point, while it may be true that Fidel Castro ousted a leader, Fulgencio Batista, who was himself holding on to power illegitimately following a coup, this in no way mitigates Castro’s own crimes. The fact is that Castro quickly proceeded to expropriate the private property of U.S. citizens and corporations, which provoked the retaliatory embargo. Castro’s promise to hold free elections within eighteen months of assuming power is also 48 and a half years overdue as of this writing.
Fidel Castro’s promise to hold free elections within eighteen months of assuming power is 48 and a half years overdue.
The notion that the embargo is the main cause of the misery of the Cuban people also does not stand up under scrutiny. Yes, the embargo hurts, but Cuba is free to trade with other countries around the world, and as noted above, it has benefited from enormous amounts of assistance from the Soviet Union and Venezuela. (Raul Castro, who took over from his older brother Fidel one year ago this month, recently travelled to Moscow to renew ties with Cuba’s erstwhile ally.) In spite of these plentiful opportunities for trade, and in spite of all of this foreign aid, communism in Cuba is a colossal failure in providing for its people. The main source of the misery is clear: lack of freedom. Why did Castro never hold elections? Because of his fear that ordinary Cubans know where to lay the blame for what ails them.
But even an authoritarian regime cannot hold onto power indefinitely without some semblance of legitimacy. Having someone and something else to blame for the problems one has caused is a time-honored way of faking legitimacy, and that is just what Castro found in America and its embargo: a convenient scapegoat. Not that it takes an embargo to blame America these days, of course. But, as the Cato Institute’s 2001 Report from Havana puts it, “the embargo suits the Cuban political leadership just fine because it deflects attention from the self-inflicted inanities of socialist mismanagement.” While enough Cubans may understand the truth about their country’s leaders to throw the bums out if ever given the chance, enough are also bewitched by blaming America to allow the apparatchiks to hold on to power.
It is true that justice demanded a response for Castro’s blatant theft of the private property of U.S. citizens, but it is worth asking whether justice should be pursued at any price. Don’t get me wrong: what has two thumbs and loves justice? This guy! But justice, like freedom, isn’t free. It does not arise spontaneously in nature. To think that it does is a form of magical thinking.
If we could just say a few prayers to some all-knowing, all-powerful deity who would then eliminate all wrongs, that would be one thing. But here in the real world—here on Earth—justice is a good that must be produced by actual men and women, and actual men and women must deal with the limited resources at their disposal at any given time. Pursuing justice out of context, without regard for cost, would quickly consume all resources and still fall short of its goal. In the real world, we must make trade offs, must pick our battles, and in picking our battles, practical considerations come into play. This does not mean that we should apply a strict, short-term cost-benefit analysis to any potential pursuit of justice. It is often appropriate to punish evil even when it seems to cost more than it is worth, because of the extra benefit of future deterrence. But it does mean there are limits.
The embargo has not hurt Castro and his regime; it has made them stronger.
The embargo no doubt made sense over four decades ago, when it was adopted as a retaliatory measure for the crimes of the Castro regime. But looking at it now, we must ask who, exactly, the embargo has hurt. Justice demands that force be used only in retaliation, and only against those who have initiated the use of force, but the embargo has used force mostly to hurt ordinary people who are guilty of no crime. How does punishing innocent Cubans and Americans who want to trade with one another help to correct the injustices of past expropriations, or the continuing injustices under which ordinary Cubans suffer?
Defenders of the embargo think that it will force Castro’s regime to see the error of its ways. How? Somehow. This is more magical thinking. After all these years, we know that the embargo has not worked, and it does not serve Americans’ long-term interests—including their interest in justice. The embargo has not hurt Castro and his regime; it has made them stronger. If a punishment’s effect is to empower its intended target, then surely it is an unwise policy. The point is not that we must abandon our pursuit of justice, that justice is fine in theory but not in the real world. It is rather that applying the principle of justice successfully requires being rational, and part of being rational is admitting when a strategy has failed and developing a better one.
Why does the embargo continue? As Cato’s Report from Havana concludes, “Current U.S. policy toward Cuba is based on historical inertia, domestic political calculations, and emotionalism.” The embargo’s continued existence has more to do with power than principle, more to do with the preferences of a well-organized minority of Cuban expatriates in Florida, a swing state, than with any objective appraisal of the situation.
The best revenge, in fact, would be the freest, most open trade in goods, services, and ideas, in order to undermine the stranglehold Castro’s regime has had on the Cuban people. Several decades of this kind of engagement with China, another communist regime and a far bigger potential threat, has loosened its grip. The best revenge against Mao has been to bring China into the international fold and to coax, rather than to force, its government into the 21st century.
I am convinced that most Cubans and Americans want the same things: peace, prosperity, and freedom, for themselves and their loved ones and ultimately for their fellow human beings. The real question is how to get more of these blessings for everyone. In a world with no embargo, goods and services would be traded freely, American cultural products would entice Cubans to think again, ideas would flow between travelers and businessmen, and a Cuban middle class would begin to grow, undermining both Castro’s regime and its communist ideology. With the changing of the guard at long last on the island nation, it is time for the Cuban and American governments to sit down and negotiate a truce, for the good of both their peoples.
spiderID=1882
.png){kind=icon}
