USA Today. June 6, 2000. Page 14A
Just try straightening this twisted logic:
* Normalizing trade with communist China is a good thing: It will help open China's economy and encourage those seeking more democracy and freedom. And it'll make money for U.S. business, too.
* But even a modest crack in the ban on trade with communist Cuba is bad: It just rewards an entrenched dictatorship. Even if it might make money for U.S. producers.
That's the loopy contradiction being peddled by congressional leaders as they try again this week to block legislation that would open the possibility of selling food and medicine to Cuba after 38 years.
The House approved normalization of trade with China two weeks ago, and the Senate is expected to act this month. Meanwhile, though, dealing with Cuba remains frozen in a Cold War time warp.
The 1962 ban on trading with Cuba was an effort to stop Fidel Castro from converting his supposedly populist revolution into a hostile communist dictatorship. But the rest of the world has for years been willing to sell anything Cuba is able to buy. Thus the principal losers are U.S. exporters,
not Castro. In fact, Castro regularly uses the embargo as an excuse for failings attributable to communism.
Majorities in both the House and Senate recognize the need for change. The Senate voted 70-28 last year to exempt food and medicine from unilateral U.S. trade embargoes such as the one against Cuba, but the proposal stalled. Now, more than 220 members of the House, a majority, are on record in
support of similar legislation -- but they can't get a vote on it.
Swayed by opponents who say the ban on Cuba must remain in place until Castro's political and economic repression ends, House leaders are using their clout to prevent a vote they might lose. They abruptly adjourned the House for an 11-day recess last month when they couldn't be sure of keeping
the issue off the floor. It may come up again as early as Wednesday.
Cuba's weak economy, burdened by state controls and mismanagement, doesn't have a lot to spend on imports. But Cuba does buy about $750 million a year in food from abroad and $40 million in medical supplies.
Sales that could, for example, help hard-pressed U.S. farmers, strapped by low commodity prices and diminished foreign markets, go instead to competitors in other countries.
When the dead hand of state control is inevitably eased, as happened in other communist countries, Cuba's ability to purchase imports will grow -- and those already in the market are likely to have the best chance to profit from it. As long as the current policy continues, that won't be the
United States.
U.S. anger at Castro's seizure of private property, abuse of human rights and efforts to export his revolution is understandable. But economic embargoes that don't have the support of other countries are bound to backfire on U.S. interests.
Common sense requires that the United States admit the futility of the Cuban embargo and open the door, at least a crack, to trying the same logic there as in China: Economic engagement just might have positive results in the long run. Self-imposed isolation -- of the United States, not Cuba --
can't have positive results for anybody.Today's debate: Cuban embargo Momentum builds in Congress to end ineffective Cuban trade ban. |