Why Sanctions on Cuba Must Remain

Why Sanctions on Cuba Must Remain

Jaime Suchlicki, is the Emilio Bacardi Moreau distinguished professor of
history, editor of the Cuban Affairs Journal and director of the
Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. He
is the author of several books including "Mexico: From Montezuma to the
Rise of the PAN" and "Cuba From Columbus to Castro."

UPDATED NOVEMBER 20, 2013, 12:17 PM

In his Nov. 18 speech at the Organization of American States, Secretary
John Kerry failed to make a compelling case for keeping U.S. sanctions
on Cuba. While correctly pointing out that the Monroe Doctrine is no
longer valid, Kerry insisted that "people to people" travel, the visits
by Americans under U.S. license to Cuba, is having an impact in
penetrating the Communist system.

If the travel ban and the embargo are ended unilaterally now by the
U.S., what negotiating tool to encourage change in Cuba will the U.S.
government have with a future regime?
His assumptions are incorrect. First, the Castro brothers and their
allies aren't naïve; U.S. tourists have no chance of subverting their
regime and influencing internal developments.

Second, American tourists won't bring democracy to Cuba. Over the past
decades several million tourists from Europe, Canada and Latin America
have visited the island, and nothing has changed. If anything, Cuba is
more repressive, with the state apparatus strengthened by the influx of
tourist dollars.

Third, tourism and trade don't lead to economic and political change. No
study I know of has found that tourism, trade or investments had
anything to do with the end of communism in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union. A disastrous economic system, competition with the West,
successive leadership changes with no legitimacy, a corrupt and weak
Communist Party, anti-Soviet feeling in Eastern Europe and the failed
Soviet war in Afghanistan were among the reasons for change.

Fourth, engagement with a totalitarian state won't bring about its
demise. Only academic ideologues and some members of Congress interested
in catering to the economic needs of their state's constituencies cling
to this notion. Their calls for ending the embargo have little to do
with democracy in Cuba or the welfare of the Cuban people.

Repeated claims that the embargo is the cause of Cuba's economic
problems are hollow. The reasons for the economic misery of the Cubans
are a failed political and economic system. Like the communist systems
of Eastern Europe, Cuba's system does not function, stifles initiative
and productivity and destroys human freedom and dignity.

What's more, ending U.S. sanctions without major concessions from Cuba
would send the wrong message to the Castro regime and to the rest of
Latin America. Supporting regimes and dictators that violate human
rights and abuse their population is an ill-adviced policy that rewards
and encourages further abuses.

If the travel ban and the embargo are ended unilaterally now by the
U.S., what negotiating tool to encourage change in Cuba will the U.S.
government have with a future regime? Countries don't change their
policies without a quid pro quo from the other side. Unilateral
concessions are pocketed by our adversaries without providing meaningful
changes.

Sanctions should be ended as a result of negotiations between the U.S.
and a Cuban government willing to provide meaningful and irreversible
political and economic concessions, not only to the U.S. but, more
important, to the Cuban people.

Source: "Why Sanctions on Cuba Must Remain in Place - Room for Debate -
NYTimes.com" -
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/19/sanctions-successes-and-failures/why-sanctions-on-cuba-must-remain-in-place