Another Florida primary election, another opportunity for Republicans to pander to anti-Castro sentiment among bitter Cuban Americans. Mitt Romney and Newt Gringrich are chasing the votes of Miami hardliners who are still angry about losing their assets to the Castro regime 50 years ago. These people generally favour of a continued trade embargo, in spite of its well-documented failure, in the illusory hope of exacting some sense of revenge. Only Ron Paul has had to courage to state the obvious and to call for renewing diplomatic relations with Cuba.
Other leading Republican candidates have failed to show any leadership on this matter and Ron Paul has an opportunity to attack their fundamentalist position and to ask the following questions:
1. Why do US companies have to suffer from the embargo while others don’t?
While US companies are barred from doing business in Cuba, foreign companies from all over the World are winning contracts and market share. Melia Hotels from Spain operates 7 hotels in Cuba, government officials are buying their cars from French and German car manufacturers and Singapore has recently sent a new platform to support offshore drilling in Cuba. Meanwhile American companies, the most natural trading partners in the region, are watching by the sidelines.
2. Why does agriculture get an exception?
Indeed, while the embargo lives on, lobbyists from the (already highly subsidized) agriculture and pharma industries have succeeded in opening up trade with Cuba in 2000. A decade later, Cuba gets most of its chicken and rice from the US. Why this exception? It’s not like Cubans are starving or suffering from lack of resources. On the contrary, Cubans have a longer average life expectancy than Americans and health officials are worried of an increase in obesity. Agribusiness lobbyists have managed to lift the embargo on their products by arguing that the embargo would otherwise cost American jobs. The same argument could be used by other industries, such as for US car giants Ford and GM, whose beautiful 1950s cars are still being used all over Cuba. Selling new cars in Cuba again could create a few of those Detroit jobs that politicians wish for so badly.
3. Why don’t we apply the lessons learned elsewhere?
In the 90s, Clinton lifted the embargo and restored diplomatic relations with Vietnam, angering a few US Veteran’s organizations in the process. It was a small political price to pay which yielded huge economic dividends for both countries with trade and foreign direct investment continuously growing since, lead by Intel and Nike. Increased trade also opened the dialogue on other matters such as human rights or military collaboration. While a shift to democracy is not yet in sight for Vietnam or China, communism, at least in the economic sense of the term, has been vanquished by opening up the trade embargos. It’s obvious the same would happen in Cuba.
Mitt and Newt should stop pandering to the whims of a handful of bitter Cuban Americans who want us to stick to old, failed policies. The embargo is hurting American companies against foreign competition, costing jobs at home and allowing the Cuban government to leverage its martyr status in domestic and foreign policy. This effectively helps to keep the Castros in power, the exact opposite effect to its original intent.
Cuban Americans must come to terms with the fact they will never be able to exact any revenge via an embargo policy. They should instead cherish the opportunity to visit a country which has remained miraculously unscathed by capitalism, where the streets are not covered by plastic bags and billboards (there is no advertising in Cuba), where pollution is almost non-existent (because of the lack of cars and heavy industry), and where people are well fed and healthy. Beats another trip to Tijuana no?
